Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP
2019-12-30 13:17:58
On 12/30/19 11:34 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
On 30 Dec 2019, at 16:06, Keith Moore <moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com
<mailto:moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>> wrote:
On 12/30/19 10:58 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
On 30 Dec 2019, at 15:24, Keith Moore <moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com
<mailto:moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>> wrote:
On 12/30/19 8:31 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
30% of email addresses on a marketing list go bad every year. It
doesn’t seem that changing email addresses is that problematic.
Of course it is problematic, because any email address that is
changed for that reason cannot be used as stable contact info for
use between friends and colleagues. And this degrades the
utility of email.
This has been the case since 1999.
So addressing the issue is clearly long overdue.
Why are you assuming no one has attempted to address the issue in 20
years?
I don't assume that at all, and the myriad efforts to address the issue
are quite evident. But I also observe that email delivery, as
experienced by casual email users, is still unreliable - to the point
that for many people, email is the messaging system of last resort.
But it's also essential enough to have that system of last resort that
casual email users have developed lots of ways of attempting to cope
with the unreliability.
And yet, I still find Internet standard email fundamentally more
functional than every other messaging system out there. And I think
Internet email is fixable, whereas most of the other interpersonal
messaging systems appear to me to have fundamental and largely
insurmountable limitations that will likely keep them from ever being as
functional.
But it's not necessary to survey the literature to understand that
spam is a huge problem and that existing solutions are inadequate.
It is necessary to understand why the existing solutions are what they
are. You’ve made a host of assumptions that are, quite honestly,
disrespectful of the people who’ve been working on this for their
entire careers.
I mean no disrespect, and my very purpose in this conversation is to
understand the landscape. But I suspect the political and/or economic
landscape is more of an impediment to solving the problem than the
technical challenges are. And that's why, to me, it makes sense to try
to understand the political and/or economic landscape before doing a
technical deep dive on any particular proposal.
I also observe that the landscape is different now than it was in the
late 1990s and wonder if the changing landscape creates new
opportunities that did not exist 20 years ago.
Or to explain this a different way - I have identified roughly a dozen
significantly different technical approaches that appear to have not
been tried (at least at scale), because most of them are things that
would involve changes to the email protocols and/or widespread practice
- if they had been tried, it would be evident.
I also know better than to float concrete proposals without doing a lot
of technical research first. But in my experience the political
research is even more important. If a bad idea gets shot down for
technical reasons, that's overall a good thing even if it meant some
energy was wasted. But if a good idea gets shot down for political
reasons, that's a very bad result, because the good idea can be
discredited for decades after the political issues have been forgotten.
So before trying to pitch or defend or even develop technical proposals
in detail, I want to understand which of those proposals might land on
potentially-fertile ground, and maybe also where the fertile ground is
if it exists.
Keith
p.s. I also understand that if any new ideas were found to be helpful,
they would be more likely to be complimentary approaches to what exists,
than competing ones.
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, (continued)
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Laura Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Laura Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Laura Atkins
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP,
Keith Moore <=
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP, Keith Moore
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Dave Crocker
- [ietf-smtp] It's not about IP-Literals, its about SMTP Compliancy., Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-smtp] Endless debate on IP literals, Keith Moore
|
|
|