What should actually happen here is that the end-user should say "huh, my
service provider isn't helping me, I should switch to someone who provides
better service."
And give up the email address they've had for many years, which they have given
to all their friends and customers, printed on their business cards, subscribed
to mailing lists, and perhaps most importantly, attached to all of their
online accounts, some of which can only be changed by abandoning the account,
with all that implies?
Yeah, that's gonnna happen.
And this presupposes that the same user who wasn't knowledgeable about
email matters actually knows what services they should expect to get from
a "good" provider.
I've lost track of the number of times I've patiently explained to someone that
their problem was the result of crap service from their provider. I can count
on the fingers of no hands the number of times this has resulted in them
changing providers.
By making it possible for Marlin B. Rando to diagnose their problem (at the
expense of _everybody's_ privacy), you are not really helping them. You are
short-circuiting a feedback channel that would, if you didn't short-circuit
it,
actually do a better job of correcting the problem.
In an ideal world, maybe. But here in the real world we have to take factors
like provider lock-in into account in assessing these tradeoffs.
Ned
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp