Pish-posh. The email has the utility that it does because of its openness. Things like SPF would have been a good idea but to think they'd stop spam is foolishwishful thinking. All they do is stop forgery.
I've not seen any protocol proposals that would actually help the spam situation that don't lock out independently run domains (like ours).
I'm not sure that your statement and mine are mutually exclusive.
Aren't the suckiness of in-protocol email-improvement proposals at least partially due to their efforts to remain backwards-compatible and not break the world? (I am assuming, anyway. It's not like I read the damn things...)
I don't think so. I've not heard of a protocol that would be open and simultaneously spam-free. Nor can I imagine one. This makes me suspect that these are not compatible goals.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-01 05:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-01 05:27 pm (UTC)I've said it many times.
Date: 2005-12-01 05:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 08:20 pm (UTC)foolishwishful thinking. All they do is stop forgery.I've not seen any protocol proposals that would actually help the spam situation that don't lock out independently run domains (like ours).
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 09:49 pm (UTC)Aren't the suckiness of in-protocol email-improvement proposals at least partially due to their efforts to remain backwards-compatible and not break the world? (I am assuming, anyway. It's not like I read the damn things...)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-02 10:29 pm (UTC)