Keith Moore writes:
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
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
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 full moon.
Anyone around here been on Usenet in the late 1990s, and remember this on-
going flamewar, how spam filtering is detrimental, how everyone has an
entitled right to have their email delivered, yadda yadda yadda?
That's what this reminds me of. I'm really getting a sense of deja vu here.
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.
That was another frequent theme on news.admin.net-abuse.email, circa
1990s – how people are suffering victims of their administrators' draconian
spam filtering policies.
Well, those arguments weren't exactly widely accepted back then, and I don't
think they're widely accepted now, either.
Description: PGP signature
ietf-smtp mailing list