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

Scott Kitterman <> Mon, 05 October 2020 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2CF3A0C3D for <>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 21:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.b=EPgO7QQ/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=V4MUQkRz
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PJYreg62LsSr for <>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 21:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6077E3A0C00 for <>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 21:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F270F80270 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 00:22:21 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1601871740; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=DQKo+ijFQYbdmavHGWbpTr3NiRb8h0fCffYnUN7ghUs=; b=EPgO7QQ/4aP9HA3kAJr3SeeB3b9Ot/zFUweFR9heGD/o8azFPXRG4RHrW2Dm2IJ/0ivjs jI9J6+qabe4kB0eCw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1601871740; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=DQKo+ijFQYbdmavHGWbpTr3NiRb8h0fCffYnUN7ghUs=; b=V4MUQkRz1M3RbWVDAowvol8+GyBz5ef9JlzxzQdw+3nO5givTCFcVtWHaoZWDLBxbhWdd kdRoubYfarikjHRWnuuhR133qY4V1N3sdfblEaaUagZPCOLG4bdj6+qdJ78ZdG3A0snx2Xt 8HM3Qa4ajCG+XzsE+xmFbPAfOEGs/9FP/p91nWo6+vnc5Bi3saKMC92f2vAdtqI4gAy8omR n1IPItsOFdoLEnXgGYanatCMlo26IBlFzWEBVIr/bG+svx/3s5UALtYgFNCU93b860/7yWS 5ia9oS6JyS3zULpjzCEyFXVAh8Kj3hrZpTljTVWqvLWC8ctKEuX+CrSU4UPA==
Received: from zini-1880.localnet ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2893F800F6 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 00:22:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 00:22:20 -0400
Message-ID: <6062847.obMpaAyTvT@zini-1880>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <7794114.ycBYOQNFYP@zini-1880> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] why I'm discussing the spam filtering problem
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 04:22:25 -0000

On Monday, October 5, 2020 12:06:25 AM EDT 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.)
> > Spam filtering email may cause problems, but it is still a net benefit.
> I do find spam filtering useful in some instances, but don't see a
> general net benefit.  Sometimes it's a win, sometimes it's a huge lose.

And anyone who want to receive email without filtering is quite free to do so.

> > It's necessary precisely because email is such a great messaging system.
> I don't follow that.   Certainly spam filter is sometimes necessary,
> though, because email is so accessible.

What you said is the same thing I said, just said differently.

> > What's your solution?  Don't filter and deliver everything isn't a
> > solution. It merely transfers the problem to someone else.
> Agree, but I wouldn't expect the optimum to be at such an extreme anyway.
> I have some ideas, but I don't think I could work out the entire
> solution by myself.   And in an environment with as much hostility as
> this one, I don't think suggesting something that isn't both
> comprehensive and comprehensible is likely to produce any kind of
> constructive discussion.

I will confess that I haven't been following the recent threads exhaustively, 
but I haven't seen it.  I think the most hostile email I've seen recently is 
yours that I originally replied to where you accused people who disagree with 
you of actively wanting to sabotage email.  I agree that sort of discussion is 
unlikely to be productive.

Scott K