On 2022-09-13 at 11:48 -0700, Luke wrote: > There's some serious irony throughout this thread. Out of one side of > our mouths we despise "oligopolies" and service providers who get too > big to block or, conversely, too big to care about their own spam > footprint. And out of the other side of our mouths we are begging for > security and privacy regulations that essentially make it impossible > for anyone other than a massive oligopoly to thrive. The cost of > adhering to the latest regulation-of-the-day is prohibitive to the > small operator's (sender or receiver) success. This is, of course, by > design. But it's really interesting to observe how confusing the > debate is when both sides lack anything resembling first principles. > Everything we do prevents the marketplace of ideas from actually > functioning and finding a solution. Then we feign outrage and harm > and confusion about why we don't have a viable solution to these > relatively innocuous problems. We have a large group of well-intended > people who think they are spending 100% of their focus-time solving > this problem. When, in fact, we have a large group of people spending > half their time fixing the problem and half their time > unintentionally (and unknowingly) making it worse. > > Luke
Excuse my ignorance Luke, but what is it that makes so prohibitive? I am not aware of complex security and privacy regulations. In fact most of them should be common sense. Of course, you would still need a lawyer to ensure all checkboxes are ticked, but I don't think there are things complex to implement, really. Am I missing something? Kind regards _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
