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

Keith Moore <> Mon, 05 October 2020 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578CF3A0F07 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bUVOr-YO-fAy for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21CA63A0EF8 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482DD5C0163 for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:50:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 05 Oct 2020 13:50:37 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding: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=S9wGKGxwD849sUytbi3d+QWAEeelZcOeq8eO61YGw IA=; b=P91EWGryTxXkZUpl7dkNuMeVc7Z0A/5336wHwLMCUTzIzS1+SpUerxJMw WyUKcrK82iDgOwLRCRwC/XKdsrvcPvKZVOApY8d5yW0bM8mkyElqjIoHShMqFw8q drawxkq5sIPzELOHhVOrXX46zvZ881LGNCOps9F8E/ZsJxhtw3pqVZ/QmlkSJOEL G9GqFKiGX3DDShry5Qpry1uYRVque1vRR/tRwTO/bNzI7MTuSYscvMb8wtseZlzv y5clk42R7yH+0inWtOLIVwFxZwu58k6T2hA50OAuZi6fLMNwptaZ4+L2OMGw2Bt+ 5tOYFYU1PgMT67Lc+2ZmnNTgJn7Xg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:7Fx7XwOw7EEVeHi_lASy74TjSgn0NQQSj8qT2BNZDj0J7LI5puUmqA> <xme:7Fx7X2-_o9zvMY3bEYumA3QlCeQQmi63OUx-6gMfrLU36nUp6tw2Xs2MWmxlmOtXA nUmdjrxZVN6TQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrgedvgdduudelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehhfeutdehfe fgfefghfekhefguefgieduueegjeekfeelleeuieffteefueduueenucfkphepuddtkedr vddvuddrudektddrudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:7Fx7X3SUasOk1SnwM_BXpMdyoUYSv5g3juDVVxq02L7D0q1Py0U1ww> <xmx:7Fx7X4vZlK3ARb7QPEOxLpQFUmnu_AinNu1A2-u8Up2UvKY3uPldWg> <xmx:7Fx7X4dGO_b1WO-TYtpDcb32SYNLCYcsqTCY6Cw-E3dWxQQjeH4GBw> <xmx:7Vx7X_-xrc-v608qglsEGmULi7q8dQfMn2qAUB0Ffjb8PqcJUK3GeA>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 98F7A328005D for <>; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:50:36 -0400 (EDT)
References: <> <7794114.ycBYOQNFYP@zini-1880> <> <6062847.obMpaAyTvT@zini-1880>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:50:35 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6062847.obMpaAyTvT@zini-1880>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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 17:50:39 -0000

On 10/5/20 12:22 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

>> 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.

Is that generally true?   I haven't done a wide survey, but most of my 
mail accounts don't seem to have the option to disable filtering.

>>> 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.

I guessed right for once.