I admit that I am unable to fully understand the level of objection
to the residual flaws. Innocent people will be sent bounces at maybe
0.1% of the frequency they will be sent spam, yet the thought that
any innocent person would receive an erroneous bounce is apparently
absolutely intolerable in the eyes of many people.
Speaking as someone who finds it a fatal flaw in your system - well,
yes, it is unacceptable for anyone to be sent spam. If 1000 spams a
day are aimed my way, that does not make it the least bit more
acceptable for you to send me one.
I've seen this pernicious "there's so much abuse running around, *my*
little bit is so small it's acceptable" from people supposedly on the
anti-spam side more than I'd expect. First eu.org, which seemed to
think that their low level of relay attempts was somehow made
acceptable by the high level of others' relay attempts (or rather, the
high level they presumed was present of others' relay attempts); now
this, which seems to be saying that it's okay to send a little spam
because there's a lot going around.
No innocent user will ever get an erroneous bounce if a few of the
large consumer ISP adopt the system;
I must admit I find this statement utterly incomprehensible - or more
precisely, I find the idea that anyone of your obvious intelligence
could believe it utterly incomprehensible. How will - how *could* - "a
few of the large consumer ISPs" adopting your system, or any other,
prevent a small site handling its own mail in, say, San Jose, from
sending an erroneous bounce to a user at a small site handling its own
mail in, say, Ottawa?
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML
mouse(_at_)rodents(_dot_)montreal(_dot_)qc(_dot_)ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg