Re: (ET) from line and anti-spoofing systems

[Charlie <medievalist gmail com>]

Neither SPF or DKIM harm anonymity in any real way.  Spend two minutes
getting a throw-away Gmail or Yahoo address in order to be anonymous.
Both will provide SPF and DKIM for you without you doing anything;
they have been doing it for years.

--Charlie


On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:06 PM, David Roden (Akron OH USA)
<etpost drmm net> wrote:
> I went through this about 2 months ago on two other email discussion 
> lists
> that I operate, including one with over 600 members.  It wasn't just 
> people
> being unsubscribed - though there was plenty of that - it was also list
> members not receiving posts.
>
> Breaking mailing lists is not the only collateral damage from SPF and 
> DKIM.
> Remember the old cartoon "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog"?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog
>
> Until recently, one of the hallmarks of the net was the ability to be
> anonymous when one chose to do so.  There are sometimes legitimate 
> reasons
> for anonymity.  It's not just for spammers.  Anonymity can be a life 
> saver
> in some circumstances - or a freedom saver - at least a job saver.
>
> It's grown more and more difficult to maintain in recent years, and this 
> is
> just one more nail in the coffin for net anonymity.
>
> I hate spam as much as the next guy, but I deeply regret this trend.
>
> Personally, I don't see the pressing need for SPF and DKIM - I've been 
> able
> to keep my mailbox relatively spam free without them.
>
> However, it appears that we're stuck with them, so this list and others 
> will
> simply have to deal with the situation.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elec-trak mailing list
> Elec-trak cosmos phy tufts edu
> https://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/mailman/listinfo/elec-trak