> On 10 Jul 2023, at 17:44, Grant Taylor via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Dear ${FELLOW_EMAIL_ADMINIATRATOR},
>
> I don't know how to preface this email other than to say -- I believe the
> following needs to be said lest we loose even more control of our email
> community.
>
> I'm sorry that both 1) I feel that the following needs to be said and 2) that
> I'm the one that's saying it.
>
> ...
>
> I can't say that any of Richard's comments are technically wrong. But I will
> say that the tone of what the email represents is both disappointing and
> concerning to me.
>
> N.B. that Richard is one of many that have said similar things. My comments
> are *NOT* directed at Richard.
>
> Rather many of us are culpable for allowing things to get into this state by
> not actively fighting against it. -- The first step is admitting you have a
> problem.
>
> ...
>
> I agree that email is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. But
> comparatively I suspect it's easier to host your own email than starting a
> company to build a car from scratch. Is this a good comparison, probably
> not. But is it true? I really hop so.
>
> On 7/10/23 7:48 AM, Richard Clayton via mailop wrote:
>> not that I know of -- arguably there should be one, but perhaps it will just
>> encourage unwise activity. I am reminded of Usenet advice of not posting for
>> the first six months and if you ask why that is good advice then add another
>> six months...
>
> I agree with -- what I'll call -- auditing. I don't agree with asking
> questions meaning that you need to extend the audit time. I've seen some
> EXTREMELY intelligent questions asked by people very knew to the situation.
>
> Simply asking a question does not, in and of itself, mean that someone is
> ignorant of the topic. Quite the opposite can be true. E.g. "Is there any
> reason to ever run an open relay? There seem to be LOTS of negative points
> to doing so; <insert subset of the list here>." type thing.
>
>> I recently reviewed an IETF draft on (de)centralisation which observed that
>> running your own mail system, rather than using a centralised provider was
>> far too hard.
>
> This disappoints me, greatly. Both the idea that running a decentralized
> mail server is hard and more so that such recommendations would admit or
> worse support such a stance.
>
>> In discussions with Eliot Lear we ended up with a list of things you had to
>> do:
>> * configure and manage the MTA
>
> This is obvious and not specific to email. You have to configure the service
> for any and all services. Chances of defaults doing exactly what you want
> are quite rare.
>
>> * arrange for a backup MTA
>
> I'll argue that requiring a backup MTA is not strictly required.
>
> I'll absolutely agree that a backup MTA is best practice.
>
> There is a really big delta between strict requirement and best practice.
>
>> * manage DNS MX, DKIM, DMARC and SPF records
>
> None of those are strictly required either. Business to business email can
> function without any of them.
This is bad advice.
B2B email requires a MX (like, if you don’t have an MX do you even email?)
In order for mail to be accepted at Google Workspace you must have either SPF
or DKIM. There have been long discussions here about that. If you’re on IPv6
they’re a MUST (in the traditional RFC sense))
DMARC is wholly optional.
laura
--
Having an Email Crisis? 800 823-9674
Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com
(650) 437-0741
Email Delivery Blog: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
