Well, maybe. I have no interest in arguments that it's bad to
authenticate mail because people can't send anonymous mail. That
leads briskly to a scenario where anyone can say anything, but it's
pointless because nobody's listening.
I can mail a letter without being identified or authenticated. Why should
email be more restrictive than postal mail?
Not all authenticated speech is spam. Sometimes it's a call for revolution.
Sometimes a call for a rave. Sometimes a call for help with drug problems
or other issues in which people don't want to be identified. Are all AA
meetings pointless with nobody listening because they only know first names?
Such discussions are plain ignorant, and those who fail to abide by liberty
are free to use services that are designed specifically for what they want
without ruining email for others. Use those systems.
There's a variety of ways to send anonymized mail, ranging from web
mail to remailers like mixmaster. If someone wants to propose a
specific topic related to anonymous mail, perhaps a BCP on
anonymizers, I'd be willing to consider it.
Why do all email users have to adapt to those systems. Why don't those who
want to be fully authenticated adapt and use systems designed for it. You
can pay to send your messages securely, with full tracking and
authentication today. These services are great. All businesses SHOULD use
them, and I don't know why so many fear open source software but jumped on
free email with all its insecure warts. Businesses created the spam mess,
and they should leave and use commercials delivery services like they use
the post office, FedEx, etc.
David