On 9/27/20 7:55 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
gosh, Keith. Don't you consider 95% spam in email over the Internet
to be a degradation worthy of attention?
Of course I do, but ONLY if the degradation due to spam filtering is
part of the picture.
Any "degradation due to spam filtering" is only due to the spam's
existence itself. If there were no spam, there wouldn't be any spam
filtering to degrade anything. Spam filtering is not a problem, it's a
reaction to a problem.
Emphatically disagree. Anytime a legitimate message isn't delivered
due to spam filtering, the spam filtering IS the problem.
Furthermore, nobody has any real standing to complain about anyone
else's spam filtering.
Emphatically disagree. Users should have a reasonable expectation of
having their mail delivered without having to stand on their heads and
beat a syncopated rhythm with a walrus appendage on a skin drum during a
Once this basic fundamental fact is established
as soon as you start stating relevant facts, I'll listen.
– that anyone is free to configure their mail servers in whaever whey
they deem to see fit and they are no obligation to accomodate any
external third party's desires or opinions – then any pontifications
on the negative effects on spam filtering become nothing more than
philosophical discussions, void of any practical application. Anyone
is free to campaign as much as they wish about whatever undesirable
effects of spam filtering they object to. They won't have any effect.
People will continue to use spam filtering methods that work for them,
and not the ones that some other third party approves of, in some way.
Irrelevant. For the most part, "people" don't choose their spam
filtering; they have it imposed on them and often have zero control over
it except to try a different email address.
ietf-smtp mailing list