Asking whether anyone resents using https is just being snarky. You know the answer and the obviousness of it makes it condescending. We all agree that https is good, so comparing that to spf and dkim is like saying GP is stupid for not having enjoyed it.

Even ignoring spf and the other anti-spam tech that doesn't do anything remotely like https, dkim only signs messages. Https is more like pgp or s/mime, not dkim. It's like posting the hash when you share a binary online: the recipient can verify the integrity and sender (namely, whoever put up the hash), but I don't think anyone considers a signed binary to be private like bank transactions done with https.

I do actually resent the way google imposed HTTPS everywhere, but my issues were with the rollout as opposed to the tech. Rant for another day :)

But with the security/encryption/signing for email... yeah, if it was just an "on" switch somewhere, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, setting up SPF for something like exim isn't very straightforward at all. It's flipping LOTS of "on" switches in lots of different places, generating and copying keys around, setting permissions on all the files properly, testing etc. It turns into a legitimate project fairly quickly, and it's hard to prove that this is a better method than just really well-trained spam filters. So, basically, it ends up being by Google fiat that I had to do that project.