On 19 Dec 2016, at 4:11, Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca> wrote:
Theodore Ts'o <tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
IBM deciding to invest a billion dollars in Linux). If you wanted to
interact with the rest of the Linux Community, you weren't going to be
using Lotus Notes. And guess what; an alternative was provided. It
had nothing to do with Linux being a cult. It had to do with a very
simple business decision.
I really do believe the IETF is underestimating how much power it has;
even if it can't move the big consumer mail providers, developers who
want to interact with the IETF will find a way.... and if not, maybe
the IETF doesn't have the power to be an effective standards
organization any more. (Which certainly seems to be true in the
e-mail space, anyway....)
+10. We are very important, far more important than we often realize.
We have power - power over our participants. Not power over any of the major
players or even our participants’ employers.
This is why I have pushed over and over again for us to do something sane.
(If that means you can't participate in NOMCOM if your company can't get
email to work, then that's okay with me. We also insist they their network
byte order correct.)
If I can't hear from companies with a p=reject policy via ietf.org lists,
then I simply don't care.
We don’t hear from companies; we hear from individuals. I care about input from
people from Microsoft and Google. I know some working groups where they make up
most of the editors. Yes, we can tell them to go get some gmail.com
<http://gmail.com/> or live.com <http://live.com/> accounts. That’s adding yet
another layer of inconvenience.
I have work to do. I already delete emails from
people who can't quote sanely.
So Outlook users are out as well?
If it's a mess on my screen, it's probably a
mess in their head too. Their opinions just aren't taken into account by me.
Sorry: "You must be this tall to ride this ride"
BUT, if their email bouncing kicks me off the list, then I will be very
grumpy. My spam filtering provider provides me controls to ignore p=reject
when arriving from certain origins, but this doesn't scale well. I'd rather
the IETF implemented DMARC properly and rejected the email from arriving at
the list. Or the IETF can repudiate DMARC completely. To me, it's the
IESG's choice, but this sitting on the fence for four years pissed me off.
Or we could provide a very basic MTA under ietf.org <http://ietf.org/>. Word on
the street is that it’s simple enough that even a politician can handle it.
Yoav