people who cite "reality" generally do so because they lack
justification for their statements.
The thing is, Keith, I don't lack justification. I've seen the numbers
with
my own eyes in our own largish organization with an IT staff that's
super paranoid about about false positives (free clue: guess who some of
our customers undoubtedly are?)
and I've had more than my share of legitimate mail fail to be delivered
(in either direction) because of such measures.
you may consider that legitimate for your or cisco's purposes. whether
to throw away mail that can potentially be from customers is a business
decision that cisco can make. that doesn't mean it's a reliable way to
run a network.
that and trusting current statistics to make decisions on future
architecture is always walking on thin ice.
find a way to make reputation servers accountable to both sender and
recipient, then we can talk about robustness. until then, they're just
another form of DoS attack.
Attacking people in the field as "DoS attackers" who are just trying to
get by given the escalating onslaught is... something.
what's that saying about the road to hell being paved by people with
good intentions?
I don't fault the intentions, I fault the logic.
as far as I can tell spam filters are about as much of a DoS attack on
email as spam is .
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf