At 08:15 PM 10/14/2008 -0400, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
The age-old "problem" of not being able to send mail because the
receiver set a policy that stopped being feasible in around 1983, or
whenever the first non-techie end user used SMTP.
Since I pay to receive the mail, and it's my domain, I'll reject anyone I like,
thank you very much. You are thinking in terms of a large free email provider
like gmail. Spam may eventually drive large email providers out of business.
Recent trends (and current business strategy at some large ESPs) suggest the
opposite. Large ESPs are growing, while smaller ESPs and ISPs that provide
email as a sideline, are going out of business. The thinking at the large ESPs
(and large spam appliance companies) seems to be that effective spam blocking
is their competitive advantage, and it takes a really large company to do it
right.
Part of the large-company strategy, unfortunately, is to hide problems with
lost mail. Given current conditions, I use yahoo.com for my Transmitter, and
my own "hobbyist" MTA for receiving.
As for reject policy, it should be the Recipient that decides whether to send a
challenge, a normal reject, or use a quarantine. There should be a sensible
default set by the Receiver for recipients that don't know or don't care.
-- Dave
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com