On Mar 30, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
Had there been better convergence on what "breaking email" means from
the start, we'd likely be done by now.
Unfair Andrew. It is well understood what the issues are. What
"breaking
email" means.
I disagree. From the start some people have said that anti-spoofing
changes will require mail submission to a home relay and that it should
be acceptable. Others do not find that acceptable. Some people see no
value in vanity addresses (such as iee.org, acm.org, *.edu) and do not
care that anti-spoofing fixes cause these use cases to be invalid.
Obviously, the users of such addresses disagree. This list has
certainly had lengthy threads regarding exploders and list
distribution. The vast email using community is just not of one mind
regarding an operational model of email.
For example, we have a big company effort behind DK and IIM. So
therefore,
as a business man, I can safely conclude a strong promotion on their
part
will sell the idea to large enterprises. Same with Microsoft. Once
SenderID
is part of the Exchange Upgrade, everything will change fellas. The
pressures will be on across the board to comply if only to satisfy
customers.
The question is, will the large enterprises now begin to have
different
policies based on the type of mail received (DK/IIM or sender-id ready
or
not)?
It might. And "just doing something" might be the only way to move
forward. After all, open relays were once acceptable as an operation
model... now they aren't (to most people).
-andy