On 12/12/2015 6:25 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
Provider and thus email address lock-in is clearly to the advantage of ISPs
and
MSPs that view their email service as a source of revenue (ads, branding,
marketing data, whatever). As such, not only will they have no interest
in any move towards eliminating that lock-in, they may well be actively
antagonistic towards it.
And at this point I fear that the shift to the use of such providers has
reached a point where anything the IETF says or does is going to be
irrelevant.
You are probably correct on both counts, but I suspect neither point
matters very much.
There is such a strong, general, natural proclivity for using email
addresses as identifiers, nothing has shown even the slightest ability
to replace them, unless one counts a few different identifiers like
Twitter hashtags, which really are roughly equivalent to email addresses
(where the hashtag itself serves as the @twitter.com semantic.)
My point is that the fact that an address is unique and is heavily used
for regular interaction, makes it an identifier.
There have been various efforts to create 'permanent' identifiers that
are independent of email addresses, or the like. None has succeeded. I
believe ISP market pressures were irrelevant to those failures.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp