Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP

Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com> Mon, 30 December 2019 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <laura@wordtothewise.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA961120048 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 05:31:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=wordtothewise.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yZ99OKxhFWrR for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 05:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.wordtothewise.com (mail.wordtothewise.com [104.225.223.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4510F12001E for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 05:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.214.134.140] (unknown [217.173.105.122]) by mail.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CBD79F147 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 05:31:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wordtothewise.com; s=aardvark; t=1577712692; bh=VznfkAu/q+89nAV6hm4aQ6IyWe1zcLc8CB+mT4fIcQ8=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=eHF+sXAwG6PyIHaCYDtWLhT1R8hB9hBEUBjsodluvqnWivZsla8bw+1aDUL7txhvc kIFuVmrmJBFzuQU+snc90nfhRkGzmAWL8wx5vAsyH/4mRE6nrW0u/7iE02hS+mI18e hUNbJoKc+dH7zjRf+mtCnGhL+SzHM3DrFsDSY3jc=
From: Laura Atkins <laura@wordtothewise.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C2F03E99-2B47-4DAA-BCCB-BAAFF4B83F5A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:31:30 +0000
References: <20191230013034.2C3E111D376E@ary.qy> <f894c448-ac91-6d27-98d6-0803de4ea535@network-heretics.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.1912292129450.44159@ary.qy> <d3dc48b0-332b-c2fe-704a-d6dc69eb5424@network-heretics.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <d3dc48b0-332b-c2fe-704a-d6dc69eb5424@network-heretics.com>
Message-Id: <3883B58F-1307-4883-BDB8-9CCAFC0E363C@wordtothewise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/22OrH-eGU64KMxqAuiYBLkpFpA4>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Possible cont4ibution to moving forward with RFC5321bis SMTP
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:31:35 -0000

> On 30 Dec 2019, at 02:44, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> 
> On 12/29/19 9:31 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> 
>>> So they're not subject to outside scrutiny.  No wonder email delivery is so unreliable.
>> 
>> Aw, come on.  They have a billion users who vote with their feet if they're unhappy.
> 
> Sure, because changing email addresses (or services, for those who have their own domain names) is easy for everyone.

30% of email addresses on a marketing list go bad every year. It doesn’t seem that changing email addresses is that problematic. 

> But yes, my response was a bit flippant. I do acknowledge that there's a kind of expertise that people who deal with large volumes of traffic on a daily basis, have, that others generally do not have.

>> Nothing personal but I cannot imagine why someone running a large mail system would care what you or I thought of their filtering scheme.  They have way more data than we will ever have.
> 
> I'd be curious as to their measurement methods, but I suppose those are also kept secret.

There is an entire sub-section of computer science publications (many of them peer reviewed documents, others whitepapers, still others theory document) that address these issues. Perhaps a few hours with google or at your local library will give you some insight into the research being done and published. 

Both Google and Microsoft also publish information about what they’ve learned about filtering and how they address issues. A recent google post: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/g-suite/ridding-gmail-of-100-million-more-spam-messages-with-tensorflow <https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/g-suite/ridding-gmail-of-100-million-more-spam-messages-with-tensorflow> 

And an older post, but one that I think addresses a lot of the issues addressed here: https://elie.net/blog/security/in-depth-analysis-of-the-lessons-we-learned-while-protecting-gmail-users/ <https://elie.net/blog/security/in-depth-analysis-of-the-lessons-we-learned-while-protecting-gmail-users/>

Happy researching. 
laura 

-- 
Having an Email Crisis?  We can help! 800 823-9674 

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
laura@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741		

Email Delivery Blog: https://wordtothewise.com/blog