Large market player

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 07 May 2014 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4C31A01CE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 11:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
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 ziwzbZ_29CTE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 May 2014 11:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 205D51A01C1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 May 2014 11:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.144.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s47I1LSR016485 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 7 May 2014 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1399485692; bh=95+gL4X0Pn+U49jt+DIBbc5lTf2i93ppcmpx8WOecG4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=fOgpo1IUbAoI/oyJYf1RROsLvJQL1emO8lOMHoYFulO6OAB1fxPMajwLaLzHhQvZK ykqqh0lxKevq5ZVlIb7z96IDj00V8829ptNLP/T9tu1ba/X/rmlrQArGxUfQ7rSI7R ptp78lktBVmfgQ5UXDpuK2apLoYlDoU5l1Cgf8ko=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1399485692; i=@elandsys.com; bh=95+gL4X0Pn+U49jt+DIBbc5lTf2i93ppcmpx8WOecG4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=a3CBwmRx4V+Zpv5NWqDga8F924HxOQBJAhiCuvcrHHB/4wz7kgA8HQcki6YaarRhx 6NKxU4TMuQYrujv1PYng4QCfOEC/Ju6+MB9aZpsAARnjHEGog0G0LVS5SauveF88Kh io4K3a4HVeg67+Rhcy9CfdUkCvClMHwd8o3Ra9LM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140507070357.0aed3eb8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 10:01:21 -0700
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Large market player
In-Reply-To: <53680844.3030706@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAMm+Lwh0Sc2wtvjEAjOMi4emDzyF4JWmmzYr5QEFcmyoKtkTAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwikJhO5R6UqWx8qUswMptgTw_wF6E6_9Ok=SRYTBChYgA@mail.gmail.com> <536113B1.5070309@bbiw.net> <CAMm+LwiXoW3p5uCmML4kAWXnbrrAnSCK9x5U2qeHJdVgR2r_Gg@mail.gmail.com> <E3A7C677B18263C8DF6DD316@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5362943D.2020907@bluepopcorn.net> <536295E5.3080502@dcrocker.net> <5362B4C6.10904@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwb_UJrjViZwxrSC=y4y8geY8-N0QOHMeBski3dEuBqB6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYPzfjPA6qBN=SXaJFvtYZcumRnZ5tCSNHbdw1r_hyG-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAKHUCzy=EFEiAR+hQt8WKE9YtpDhk7QgoLQXTKQZYzhWuW6+HQ@mail.gmail.com> <53680844.3030706@dcrocker.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OrOSyceuBDgiasMBZWRjiL2WeYc
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 18:01:45 -0000

Hi Dave,
At 14:53 05-05-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
>If a large market player declared that all mail to and from them were
>required to be written in a specific language, would that we a matter
>for the IETF to deal with?  I think not.  (For all I know, some ISP out
>there already behaves that way.)
>
>Actions like that are at the level of "politics of use" rather than
>"technology of use".  While each of us might have opinions for any such
>policy, it's not the IETF's job or competence to get enmeshed in such
>politics.

A large market player decided that all mail to them should comply 
with a technical specification.  That specification has not been 
published or recommended by the IETF.  According to (unverified) 
estimates the companies with the most email users are Gmail, 
outlook.com and Yahoo Mail.

One of the early comments on the various threads about the technical 
specification was whether the IAB can do anything about the technical 
specification.  There were comments about whether the IETF can do 
anything about the technical specification.  Should the IETF do 
anything if a large market player decides that all mail sent to it 
should comply with a technical specification?  There are different 
opinions about that.  People without influence [1] usually turn to 
the (relevant) government or an organization which they consider as 
influential when a large market player does something they dislike.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. People with influence talk to the king. :-)