Re: [ietf-smtp] IETF Policy on dogfood consumption or avoidance - SMTP v

Paul Smith writes:

> In essence, I actually think we're moving towards that anyway, with the big  
> email providers (gmail, Microsoft) essentially becoming their own ecosystem  
> which includes a form of "authorisation" and with spam DNS RBLs/whitelisting  
> orgs doing stuff. But, at the moment it's happening with no form of open  
> discussion and with no standardisation. Maybe accepting that it's happening  
> and working together to get a good standardised system would be better than  
> pretending it's not happening and having a disjointed mess?
I do not see this happening. Gmail and Microsoft still have their customers  
to answer to, whether they're paying or not. If they start spam-binning  
their customers' E-mails that do not originate from sources that they bless  
(with the blessing required in advance, via some form of registration), it's  
going to turn into a major dumpster fire very quickly.
Not to say that I don't see one of them trying something like that. But, the  
resulting crapstorm is inevitable, and the whole thing will get rolled back  
within 24 hours after hitting the news.
And, in any case, the high volume spam senders will easily register and  
authorize themselves, I see nothing that'll prevent that, and we'll be back  
to the current status quo.
I do not see any solution based on some central authority, sitting on a  
throne and giving mail senders an official blessing, as a workable solution.  
The problem with spam isn't the sender's identity. Never was. Never will be.

pgpukvyFvdHl_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp