ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321

2020-09-27 19:13:54
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 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 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.

Attachment: pgpbPiNZgsJEv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
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>