3 ms·

In my view, a better regulation would be something like this: - If an email provider decides to close an account, they must offer free forwarding to an email a

In my view, a better regulation would be something like this: - If an email provider decides to close an account, they must offer free forwarding to an email address of the account holder's choice for as long as the email provider operates (or perhaps for X years, etc.). - Email providers must not reject valid messages. They can put them in a spam folder if they like, but they can't reject them. This mitigates the oligarchical situation which has arisen where a few large email providers try to impose their will on the rest of the email ecosystem and make it increasingly hard to email their users. It would be reasonable to restrict these regulations to providers with over a certain number of users.

layer8 4y ago
In some cases it is necessary to be able to send messages from the existing address. Forwarding received messages alone isn’t sufficient.
- em-bee 4y ago
  most cases where an email must be sent from a specific address are probably something where a company emails a consumer to assure the consumer that the email is genuine. there are mailing lists that i can only write to from a specific address, and maybe a bank has a process where i can initiate certain actions by emailing them, or doctors, etc. but those all should have ways to change that email address which should hopefully be possible by verifying the address by receiving a verification token. in any case the number of situations where one must send email from a specific address should be a fraction of those where one must be able to receive email at that address.
duskwuff 4y ago
> Email providers must not reject valid messages. They can put them in a spam folder if they like, but they can't reject them. This is not feasible. Imagine that a single IP is sending a continuous flood of messages which are clearly spam, as fast as possible, to a large mail provider. Requiring that mail provider to store every single one of those messages, and to not take any steps to mitigate an instance of obvious abuse, would be completely unreasonable.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  Even forbidding "silent drop" would be a huge improvement. Either reject at SMTP level, bounce, or deliver.

layer8 4y ago

In some cases it is necessary to be able to send messages from the existing address. Forwarding received messages alone isn’t sufficient.

em-bee 4y ago
most cases where an email must be sent from a specific address are probably something where a company emails a consumer to assure the consumer that the email is genuine. there are mailing lists that i can only write to from a specific address, and maybe a bank has a process where i can initiate certain actions by emailing them, or doctors, etc. but those all should have ways to change that email address which should hopefully be possible by verifying the address by receiving a verification token. in any case the number of situations where one must send email from a specific address should be a fraction of those where one must be able to receive email at that address.

duskwuff 4y ago

> Email providers must not reject valid messages. They can put them in a spam folder if they like, but they can't reject them. This is not feasible. Imagine that a single IP is sending a continuous flood of messages which are clearly spam, as fast as possible, to a large mail provider. Requiring that mail provider to store every single one of those messages, and to not take any steps to mitigate an instance of obvious abuse, would be completely unreasonable.

yencabulator 4y ago
Even forbidding "silent drop" would be a huge improvement. Either reject at SMTP level, bounce, or deliver.