Problems sending mail to yahoo?

Joe Greco jgreco at
Mon Apr 14 14:02:52 UTC 2008

> > 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

> 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 - Network Services - Milwaukee, WI -
"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.

More information about the NANOG mailing list