On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 11:10 AM Dave Crocker via mailop <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 9/16/2022 7:35 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > > So, while AOL & Yahoo were the vanguard for mass consumer providers, the > problems were already being experienced by many corporate domains before > that, and even more since. > > The issue is not that the abuse was/is not real but that the method of > responding to it was chosen in a manner that externalized the problem to > innocent third-parties, breaking what they had been doing for 40 years. > > It would be good not to be cavalier about this, just because those > experiencing the collateral damage are not our users. > Every spam false positive is collateral damage experienced by both the sender and receiver. And every spam false negative is another nail in email's coffin. Is that not also collateral damage to "not our users", especially since this thread is spawned from the oligopoly discussion as complaints from small senders? Aren't RBL's based on the power of collateral damage? DMARC was not new in its externalization. Maybe the forced change to semantics makes it different in some way, or who was hit was different, sure. Brandon
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
