Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 9/27/20 7:55 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

>>> gosh, Keith. Don't you consider 95% spam in email over the Internet 
>>> to be a degradation worthy of attention?
>>
>> Of course I do, but ONLY if the degradation due to spam filtering is 
>> part of the picture.
>
> Any "degradation due to spam filtering" is only due to the spam's 
> existence itself. If there were no spam, there wouldn't be any spam 
> filtering to degrade anything. Spam filtering is not a problem, it's a 
> reaction to a problem.

Emphatically disagree.   Anytime a legitimate message isn't delivered 
due to spam filtering, the spam filtering IS the problem.

>
> Furthermore, nobody has any real standing to complain about anyone 
> else's spam filtering. 

Emphatically disagree.  Users should have a reasonable expectation of 
having their mail delivered without having to stand on their heads and 
beat a syncopated rhythm with a walrus appendage on a skin drum during a 
full moon.

> Once this basic fundamental fact is established 

as soon as you start stating relevant facts, I'll listen.

> – that anyone is free to configure their mail servers in whaever whey 
> they deem to see fit and they are no obligation to accomodate any 
> external third party's desires or opinions – then any pontifications 
> on the negative effects on spam filtering become nothing more than 
> philosophical discussions, void of any practical application. Anyone 
> is free to campaign as much as they wish about whatever undesirable 
> effects of spam filtering they object to. They won't have any effect. 
> People will continue to use spam filtering methods that work for them, 
> and not the ones that some other third party approves of, in some way.

Irrelevant.   For the most part, "people" don't choose their spam 
filtering; they have it imposed on them and often have zero control over 
it except to try a different email address.

Keith