Re: A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]

[Miles Fidelman <mfidelman () meetinghouse net>]

On 2/22/19 11:28 AM, John Curran wrote:

> On 22 Feb 2019, at 9:58 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman () meetinghouse net> wrote:
> > On 2/22/19 10:07 AM, John Curran wrote:
> >
> > > On 22 Feb 2019, at 7:08 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman () meetinghouse net> wrote:
> > > > On 2/22/19 12:03 AM, John Curran wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Either way, until such time your solution is deployed widely enough to significantly impact network operations, it’s 
> > > > > unlikely to be a particularly relevant topic for discussion here.
> > > > Notable exception:  DMARC.  Broke email lists everywhere - including those that folks use to solve problems on the net. 
> > > > Heck, it broke the ietf email list.
> > > Indeed - while a self-inflicted injury on its customers, the network effects of massive operating scale effectively 
> > > transition the problem space from private actor to public…
> > >
> > > hence not an notable exception, but an actual example of "deployed widely enough”
> > Hmmm....  But wasn't the initial impact of DMARC that so few senders of email had implemented it?
> If you (or your email service provider) deploy an optional solution (e.g. DMARC p=reject) that prevents you from 
> receiving email from mailing lists sending in conformance with existing standards, then that’s your choice.
>
> Expecting that others will automatically change their behavior (such as wrapping email from mailing lists) isn’t 
> reasonable - you’ve effectively decided (or let your provider decide) that you don’t want existing communications to 
> work for some categories of standard-compliant email.   The alternative is ‘Internet Coordination’, but that requires 
> actually coordination before making major changes that will break things.
>
> > Also, the impact wasn't just on customers, but on trading partners & communities - communications being a two way 
> > street and all.
> One doesn’t communicate with folks who chose (or let their service provider chose) not to receive email accordingly 
> existing standards.
> In any case, irrelevant to the dombox situation, unless/until someone actually deploys at a scale large enough to 
> require consideration.
Not relevant to the dombox approach - though, in fairness, haven't waded 
into it deep enough to conclude that.

But re. "one doesn't communicate with folks .. etc." --- when one has 
ongoing communication with a large group of people (e.g., an email list) 
--- and a large provider shuts a door, the impact is on more than just 
the customers of that provider

Miles




--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra