Re: Thinking outside the box

On 18 Mar 2013, at 23:05, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:

> On 3/18/13 7:10 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 2013, at 10:19, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
>>
>> Beyond the proximal counter-example which is most obvious to myself,
>
> ...Say what?

The domain scconsult.com was registered when the "price" of a domain was 
writing a brief justifying essay for the InterNIC, and ".com" was 
required to mean a Commercial Enterprise. Since then I have traded in 
entrepreneurship for wage slavery, changed spouses, and had a couple of 
kids grow up with a mail server in the home. But in theory I might take 
the right consulting gig...

>> note instead the widespread (at least in the US) use of addresses in 
>> consumer freemail (e.g. yahoo.com, hotmail.com,gmail.com) and 
>> consumer ISP domains as business addresses by many small businesses.
>
>
> They deserve to be treated, then, as personal addresses. That's not a 
> problem, as that would tpyically offer increased protection.
>
>> On the other side of that fuzzy grey band, it is not uncommon for 
>> small privately-owned businesses which have their a "business" email 
>> domain to have a few addresses established simply for the convenience 
>> and/or vanity of family and/or friends of company principals.
>
> Then they should spend the flipping ten bucks a year to get another 
> domain registered.

That's not the expensive bit of the disentanglement.

I also think you've missed my point. I'm not against having strict 
domain classes that are definitively "business" or "personal" but I know 
that it does not exist today. Building mechanisms of any sort that 
depend on an assumption that it does exist is doomed to fail unless you 
attack the present reality directly. The fact that some new 
ill-conceived anti-spam mechanism is doomed to irrelevancy unless I 
split off my trivial business stuff to one of my mothballed domains with 
its own mail world AND get my employer's customers to all buy second 
domains for their brats & buddies AND everyone else does the same isn't 
adequate motivation to get me to do my parts of that work. I'm quite 
sure that most people in grey areas will not bother, so unless there's 
substantial benefit to ME for doing my own part unilaterally, neither 
will I.

SPF really is a relevant case to study because it failed to do what it 
was designed to do. If you don't understand its failure, you can't hope 
to avoid the same error.