Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPF?

[rogerk at queernet.org]

Quoting Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com>:

>
> On July 30, 2004 at 14:04 rogerk at queernet.org (rogerk at queernet.org) wrote:
>  > Despite the use-neutrality of the technology, it has been made clear that
> people
>  > out there intend to block sites that are behaving totally in compliance
> with
>  > the SPF spec and thereby interfere with the ability of their users to
> receive
>  > the mail they want.  "It's optional" or "publish whatever you wish" is
> bogus
>  > lip service.
>
> Not to be nihilistic, but by what authority?

By what authority WHAT?

> But if MSN decides to block all email from Earthlink or vice-versa it
> may not be a good thing but, well, other than closing your acct with
> them what's your recourse?

You don't have any.  That's my point.

But odds are they will do it without your knowing it or consenting to it, throw
away mail you wish to receive without your awareness or consent, all in the
name of spam reduction.

First do no harm.

> I suppose one could speculate on damages done etc etc etc but when you
> get right down to it getting a lousy burger from McD's is mostly just
> a recommendation to stay away from McD's.

As long as they promote the value of spam reduction without informing their
users of how they may be interfering with the service they desire -- and
therefore make the climate for their peers to interfere in the same way -- the
users lose.  And it's not like anyone's going to rush to an anonymous
non-player like your comany to get what they need -- partly because they don't
know it's being done, and partly because you don't have the wherewithal to put
a commercial on every network every ten minutes and put a CD in every
newspaper.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg