On 2019-12-16 18:15:51 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
On 12/16/19 5:53 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
Frankly, it simply points to professionalism, is the operator of the
sending platform informed enough to use a proper FQDN, and often that is
enough to make some operators consider email arriving as less trust
Yes, it does point to professionalism. Is the operator of the mail service
professional enough to use only valid criteria in filtering mail, or do they
make arbitrary, uninformed, cargo-cult decisions about what filtering
criteria to use?
How do you know whether they did the first or the latter?
Sure, the wrong explanation ("RFC 2821 violation", when there was in
fact no such violation, and RFC 2821 isn't even the relevant RFC
anymore) strongly suggests that whoever implemented that filter wasn't
exactly firm in their knowledge about protocol details.
But it is still possible that they analyzed a large collection of SMTP
sessions and found that this specific test reduced spam by X % at a
false positive rate of Y % (with Y very close to 0). That would make the
decision very much informed and non-arbitrary and the criterion valid.
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | hjp(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"
Description: PGP signature
ietf-smtp mailing list