I see, so, people explain why an anti-spam idea won't work and in fact it doesn't work, but you feel both the people who've explained why it won't work and the universe we live in where it didn't work are wrong.
Some of them won't work. It's true. Many even. But the list is huge and includes ideas which would reduce spam but demand regulatory engagement which nobody wants to discuss seriously, or financial consequences. Fundamentally I've always felt it's dishonest, disingenuous to combine things you don't like with things which won't work.
It's been used as a put down by the email cabal for over two decades. Ietf grey and whitebeards. It's just a mechanistic formalism to define an ingroup and an outgroup now. I whine about it on mail related lists and forums from time to time and have done since it first emerged. Dealing with bad ideas is important, putting new entrants into the problem space off by being patronising is really asocial.
The irony is that centralisation of mail into a parallel cabal of Google, O365 and a small number of others is probably altering the surface of email problems by ignoring the list, and doing what they do, for money, and under regulatory pressure.
Many of the "it won't work" mob are now finding running a full stack, ipv6 enabled SMTP sender next to impossible. Dkim and spf won't stop reputation agents dismissing them as "bad"
