Re: Sufficient email authentication requirements for IPv6

I don't have the same overall feeling that its less reliable.

I believe it is 100% reliable when it comes to the "good" 
communications, the serious stuff, the work, business communications. 
Those get through and more importantly, above all, when there is a 
problem, good people complain, any email related problem is solved. On 
the other hand, "bad guys" don't complain, that includes the spammers.
I guess, in that sense, if you (speaking in general) are in the spamming 
business, part of a commercial bulk mailing business, then business is 
probably finding it harder to try to reach the eyeballs of end users.
SMTP systems are doing more of the filtering at the SMTP level - a 
Systems Level versus Users level, and at the user level, the online MUA 
(web interfaces), the backend has done a tremendous job in 
sorting/filtering spam into "Junk Folders."  Offline i.e. POP3, unless 
the user spent the effort to write the rules, its all in the same inbox. 
  In this sense, it is less reliable for the DMA, Spammers, etc, to get 
their mail to the eyeballs of users.
Lets also consider there is a higher (intentional) ignorance factor. 
Something we just don't wish to reply to a message received and read.
That would be akin to a phone call with caller ID and we ignore it, 
don't answer it.   In that vain, caller id has lowered the reliability 
of the phone protocol call being answered.  We do that total with SMTP 
connection filters, where the connection is immediately dropped (socket 
is closed).
All that doesn't make it unreliability - its done by design. It works.

--
HLS

On 4/10/2013 7:07 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 04/10/2013 06:55 PM, John Levine wrote:
> > > > There seems to be a faction that feel that 15 years ago someone once
> > > > blacklisted them and caused them some inconvenience, therefore all
> > > > DNSBLs suck forever.  I could say similar things about buggy PC
> > > > implementations of TCP/IP, but I think a few things have changed since
> > > > then, in both cases.
> > > There's an inherent problem with letting 3rd parties affect email
> > > traffic, especially when there's no way to hold those 3rd parties
> > > accountable for negligence or malice.
> > Like I said, things have changed since 1996.
> Indeed they have.   Email is much less reliable now than it was then.
>
> Keith