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

Sam Varshavchik <> Mon, 28 September 2020 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3563A0475 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K0YeN3LXwzOM for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8D3A3A0412 for <>; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 17:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [::ffff:]) (TLS: TLSv1.3,256bits,TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by with UTF8ESMTPS id 00000000002C0020.000000005F712AB6.00004B9E; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:13:42 -0400
Received: from (localhost []) (IDENT: uid 1004) by with UTF8SMTP id 000000000001C7C3.000000005F712AB5.00008E96; Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:13:41 -0400
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Message-ID: <>
From: Sam Varshavchik <>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 20:13:41 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mime-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimegpg
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=""; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] EHLO domain validation requirement in RFC 5321
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, 28 Sep 2020 00:13:45 -0000

Keith Moore writes:

>> 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.

Anyone around here been on Usenet in the late 1990s, and remember this on- 
going flamewar, how spam filtering is detrimental, how everyone has an  
entitled right to have their email delivered, yadda yadda yadda?

That's what this reminds me of. I'm really getting a sense of deja vu here.

>> 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.

That was another frequent theme on, circa  
1990s – how people are suffering victims of their administrators' draconian  
spam filtering policies.

Well, those arguments weren't exactly widely accepted back then, and I don't  
think they're widely accepted now, either.