Re: [ietf-smtp] why I'm discussing the spam filtering problem

Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com> Tue, 06 October 2020 06:01 UTC

Return-Path: <brong@fastmailteam.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 F39283A1196 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 23:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=ZYHDcB7T; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Gr2XZHK9
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 0DERgcx54CHn for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 23:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E66253A0E62 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 23:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424B64B5 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 02:01:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap7 ([10.202.2.57]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 06 Oct 2020 02:01:33 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=vu88/O9 14XnJDgNBjSWP9g+4TbIDDeGJkhASXAtEuaM=; b=ZYHDcB7TKQMo1BK9NjrmH+M sEtF8ttvzkUxn7q4s7Y2UQwtr+wf3zVifxHseU/G/t7g8GmOuB3+/wjRfVFwMTkl MqST9CZ+0r+I/UIyC2ERoAJmHTYjfSu1NBrIVHnpftGfWyHJCPPifJDFhHYWS8xf pjJccDv7fN7qA7+Lng7vCvpequOXtYtwTj4FqYIdFs+vLBNiZZn5yFvUc8eWFoKd Y9oZIWv+rgANHg28ojSK7XrPvVizvUxxIsNf7KPjrPbuLRYBZqaIS4c1YdhA/Zfs 8lr18yftyFyUwdU2Jkw6yxH9dUNu16ANHZQ+bxxOxy85ex4RZkVupI23+MuvsIw= =
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=vu88/O 914XnJDgNBjSWP9g+4TbIDDeGJkhASXAtEuaM=; b=Gr2XZHK9kD83GgKrTRWD4y BIrzgc6ATTA+P6CtLpy4hk4W4ekksckRXGLRtXeewlvht2PzEc189Xklpcs30T9+ vXwTuHTH6KthZNudduJ3TXiZ5oc6aWiC5ekuczlo2b6mIgfM1cmeRSuLJCw1pqQp LMEIJUI7e+6o/LSRReAnxusx3gwk0PitMJ7ALHYfj+wplC5lbgUTLVO9GOJkYrMn 1Q1DyUeRYSLhj830Hbv/f9TJUlV9Pk15uDOqWBPHxKDf5Aaj8UCg4osit7B4Gs4h hjHcX0dF7GTSWS4psQkDn7PASW5jARLzH+kn9gvYosK1+Wtdwp+QXRHXEh6owJ8Q ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:PAh8X8MGh1hmmnjbx3zGKwNUWaUPHoDQutRiDdRwlKvTNHxeGnR7Sg> <xme:PAh8Xy8vS59gH3G8N20dCIhmKRlYBDpEoRCrdl3LqWvQ2XeU9HkatdwFRk78lqMe- 6wxAQFnNHg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrgeefgddutdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtd erreerredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfuehrohhnucfiohhnugifrghnrgdfuceosghrohhnghes fhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvudeuieehgf dvheeuueejjeeuudfgiefgveetfeelteeffffgtdejjefgueduvdenucevlhhushhtvghr ufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsrhhonhhgsehfrghsthhmrg hilhhtvggrmhdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:PAh8XzSpG5h6CmKFB_M4FATScKIR0JJmmKBvsTe2JkEcd9SUCWhlcg> <xmx:PAh8X0svn_YOT3BAq99bc5BNTaRLGnahAh_UWI_Mcrog1iXXAwp0bQ> <xmx:PAh8X0dJrOW8QNFMsKD_zdjHHttfHz8LdPyV1Ek1niVi_V3gkVDkOw> <xmx:PAh8X-pmGuotUFqBmLb1btXLJu4d6O3GYMX06o1PLHQNajXXDYc1pg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4151F180201; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 02:01:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-407-g461656c-fm-20201004.001-g461656c6
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <d7ce7565-38bc-4cf1-8596-5783e4045d3e@dogfood.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9d765dfa-fc0c-778c-39c6-47ea028243c3@network-heretics.com>
References: <50ef6e2a-d25a-1a7b-9676-ccd910e2ddd8@network-heretics.com> <7794114.ycBYOQNFYP@zini-1880> <9d765dfa-fc0c-778c-39c6-47ea028243c3@network-heretics.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 17:01:12 +1100
From: "Bron Gondwana" <brong@fastmailteam.com>
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=a17400dcc43d421bb125c4e55dfd098a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/PiwQmAVEwv-H1r72qte6354AmA8>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] why I'm discussing the spam filtering problem
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: Tue, 06 Oct 2020 06:01:36 -0000

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020, at 15:06, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 10/4/20 11:48 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

>> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 10:18:08 PM EDT Keith Moore wrote:
>> 
>>> It's because I care about Internet email, and having it work well.  
It's because I hate to see Internet email lose out to FacedOut and
LockedBook and Tooter and Frop and most of the other profoundly
dysfunctional toys that people use for interpersonal messaging these
days.   It's because (and I'll probably regret saying this) RFC821,
RFC822, and their descendants have actually held up fairly well in terms
of functionality, especially in comparison to these toys, though there's
clearly a need for improvement by now.

I'd like to think that other people here also care about having Internet
email work well, but so far the loudest people just seem to be screaming
for their right to sabotage it.   Maybe there's some good intent and
good faith buried in those arguments, but it's hard to see.
>>> 
>> My advice would be stare harder.

In my view, email without spam filtering would be totally unusable.
> Well, in my experience, that depends.   I operate some accounts with no spam filtering, some with, using different accounts for different purposes.   That has worked fairly well for me.  I do get some spam on the unfiltered accounts, but not enough to be terribly bothersome, and it's certainly better to leave spam filtering off for those accounts than to risk losing a gig.

> (I have other accounts that get horrendous amounts of spam despite having spam filtering.   I'm phasing those out but it can take a long time to update everyone's idea of your email address.)


We reject or discard over 90% of email before it reaches the mailbox for our customers, and still one of the most common complaints is that too much spam gets through.

Brandon has of course worked on a much larger system, as have others in these discussions.

Mostly, given the choice between systems without spam filtering, and systems with spam filtering, people select the ones with spam filtering.  That's a reality that we need to grapple with if we want adoption.

Cheers,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  brong@fastmailteam.com