[preinheimer]

> - Email coming from Google itself.

If email coming from google itself got special treatment there would be masses with pitchforks complaining about that.

You've made a lot of good points, but I don't think that's one of them.

[pfranz]

I don't think that has anything to do with Google needing special treatment. It shows that the company who made the rules and has every privilege to follow them isn't able to.

[jrnichols]

Valid point. They've become so large and synonymous with email that many people I encounter are actually unaware that there is other email besides "Gmail."

It feels like Google no longer has any incentive to follow the rules, and they feel that they are going to be the ones to make the new rules. The rest of us end up having to implement workarounds.

[preinheimer]

I think that's a fair interpretation and a good point.

[thaumasiotes]

> You've made a lot of good points, but I don't think that's one of them.

I disagree. I think in the absence of that point, it would have been hard to say this:

> It doesn't look intentional (look at that fourth category!)

But also, I think special treatment for trusted actors is a completely appropriate way to handle email delivery, and I also think it's appropriate for gmail to trust themselves to be sending legitimate mail. Blocking their own email makes them look totally incompetent. They absolutely should whitelist themselves. And they should have a way for you to be whitelisted too, if you want to send email.

[preinheimer]

If they whitelisted the major players in the space, I'd worry that the problem would get _much_ worse for everyone else.