|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Problems sending mail to yahoo?
> > You want to define standards? Let's define some standard for > > establishing permission to mail. If we could solve the > > permission problem, then the filtering wouldn't be such a > > problem, because there wouldn't need to be as much (or maybe > > even any). As a user, I want a way to unambiguously allow a > > specific sender to send me things, "spam" filtering be > > damned. I also want a way to retract that permission, and > > have the mail flow from that sender (or any of their > > "affiliates") to stop. > > > > Right now I've got a solution that allows me to do that, but > > it requires a significant paradigm change, away from > > single-e-mail-address. > > In general, your "permission to send" idea is a good one to > put in the requirements list for a standard email architecture. > But your particular solution stinks because it simply adds > another bandage to a creaky old email architecture that is > long past its sell-by date. Yes. I'm well aware of that. My requirements list included that my solution be able to actually /fix/ something with /today's/ architecture; this is a practical implementation to solve a real problem, which was that I was tired of vendor mail being confused for spam. So, yes, it stinks when compared to the concept of a shiny new mail architecture. However, it currently works and is successfully whitelisting the things I intended. I just received a message from a tool battery distributor that some batteries I ordered months ago are finally shipping. It was crappy HTML, and I would normally have completely missed it - probably even forgetting that we had ordered them, certainly not recognizing the "From" line it came from. It's a success story. Rare. You are welcome to scoff at it as being a stinky bandaid on a creaky mail system. > IMHO, the only way that Internet email can be cleaned up is > to create an entirely new email architecture using an entirely > new set of protcols with entirely new port assignments and > no attempt whatsoever to maintain reverse compatibility with > the existing architecture. That is a fair piece of work and > requires a lot of people to get their heads out of the box > and apply some creativity. Many will say that the effort is > doomed before it starts because it is not compatible with > what went before. I don't buy that argument at all. > > In any case, a new architecture won't come about until we have > some clarity of the requirements of the new architecture. And > that probably has to be hashed out somewhere else, not on any > existing mailing list. If such a discussion does come about, I want people to understand that user-controlled permission is a much better fix than arbitrary spam filtering steps. There's a lot of inertia in the traditional spam filtering advice, and a certain amount of resistance to considering that the status quo does not represent e-mail nirvana. Think of it as making that "unsubscribe" at the bottom of any marketing e-mail actually work, without argument, without risk. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
|