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

S Moonesamy writes:

> Hi Sam,
> At 03:49 PM 27-12-2019, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > And what tangible impact have these laws had, anywhere?
> It depends on whether the business takes a breach of a law, e.g. data  
> protection as a serious matter.  I was surprised to hear that a regulatory  
> agency based some of its investigations on tax evasion on email  
> advertising.  As for whether those laws have a tangible impact, it would  
> better to ask people with expertise in that field.
Well, I don't really know who those people are, except for a couple of names  
off the top of my head, that are widely known; but I have no recollection of  
any one of them opining on this specific topic, beyond lukewarm endorsements  
on the order of "well, it doesn't really do any harm". And I don't even know  
how one goes about being accredited for having experise in this field.
All I know is, that I've participated in some well-known anti-spam  
communities since the mid 1990s, and still do in what's left of them; for a  
brief period of time I ran my own DNSBL, before abandoning that project; I  
wrote and still passively maintain a free SMTP server, with flexible mail  
filtering capabilities. And what I said here would be pretty much what I  
would say if someone were to ask me.
> > Useful in which way, exactly? All of these laws, that have either been
> > enacted or proposed, they're all typically the same in spirit, and only
> > differ in secondary characteristics.
> It is useful to adhere to applicable laws.  The alternative is to operate in  
> an unpredictable regulatory environment with the risks which that entails.
There's a difference between being useful to adhere to applicable laws, and  
the applicable laws actually being useful.

pgp12FlQCUy7P.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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