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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 05 October 2020 02:18 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 9FA013A0B0D for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 19:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_NONE=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=messagingengine.com
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 Fh5Y2BSeBrA2 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 19:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B01593A0B08 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 19:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9EEC66 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 22:18:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 04 Oct 2020 22:18:11 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=QlgePd XpCay3mYFa7UvkeMayvG41ab2mP9yZoJhu29s=; b=AwP49Wg0cWSI71lLdt8ziq WQkiWIBQY9xyjcYdquPIngMRO2X8T3+RAOvu6JxSjZZujVre1rXmVs5+rnwZ389E /TlJnsM0M/tQPCnkezUI/b+41wlkjmPlMaDp1jNtAcF7H6z2FqYvQ1v7dAX5zLMA iPoW3TW/n1kT2IZ0oS3a75WykYZScCw7bjarRSLSClM0BnPhkeMegAYUdayw75LI IYR/+4EJOFlpWnLeT4yNuB2vyFHBoY7zCOLbI0dxOY/PS6D+wIIXiJuweYQXEptt aWtsFMRs6sTewfDB8oH0Nu9blpvWHmFG0k5IhfrVohpsFAlfJmJxPTZ37hR9BCCQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:YoJ6X4CzIfzd6vXgisler_AWdUPa6TSS03c-tNvcnIkf_9sfcnqHtQ> <xme:YoJ6X6iJlGPzeg0nOtqWW6Z_asgrjtpZmgO_Pxdy-6bC03bzTowpacN2G-97UDr4b nbgbOnoirp_ww>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrgedugdehlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepvffhuffkffgfgggtgfesthekredttd efjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhk qdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepteefveehudefledvie ekfeejtddvhefhjefhtdehheefvddtleeguefgfeeutdeunecukfhppedutdekrddvvddu rddukedtrdduheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:YoJ6X7nkK2gTAQogwt9q3SBnGWSHMJ4h0aEhAwVXRUjZV_pqBWkX3Q> <xmx:YoJ6X-wEnleJAspslFoTaLepqVN2VHRoAC8B46TvGLjIgq9QgMffRQ> <xmx:YoJ6X9Tkh7SgUPjnTGg9NeZ1Lr_s2OQIonWEPwab5LcBPsI9R5zLew> <xmx:YoJ6X3CSDg2Rm0-035TH85oqANrAsmlqSsMQPgbGhxSOTl6Z2UBrTQ>
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2C3D93064674 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Oct 2020 22:18:10 -0400 (EDT)
To: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <50ef6e2a-d25a-1a7b-9676-ccd910e2ddd8@network-heretics.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2020 22:18:08 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/wzGLcFpbb3lJveobKnZ1U5s5OY8>
Subject: [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: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 02:18:15 -0000

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.

Keith