On 28. Apr 2022, at 12:51, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I can't help but notice that the fact that it was necessary at all is a sign that email interoperates poorly in practice, We knew that :-) > and a sign that IETF has failed to maintain the email protocols to keep them interoperable. FTFY: and a sign that IETF has failed to create an economic and regulatory environment for email that doesn’t make it viable for a large player to optimize their own convenience at the detriment of interoperability with others. But wait, the IETF is not in the business of creating economic and regulatory environments. The question (that should please not be answered here on the ietf@ mailing list) is: What would have been the technical changes that might have made it less viable for a (single) large player to base spam mitigation on a locally learned concept of address reputation? BTW, I hear evidence that that player has now learned the new IETF IP addresses. Grüße, Carsten
