RE: New Standard Could Reduce Spam
This is something that I already developed last fall at the sender MTA side (AddServerSignature mailet) You and I discussed it in September, at the latest. There should be a record of it in our archives, and I have a copy of the server-signed message you sent to me with the source code on September 16th. No problem, I have all the source code working. but stopped because I was counting on having a MUA check at the recipient side, and Outlook Express was not behaving correctly. Do you recall what the issue was? I would expect to have to rewrite the Sender: header to match the key. The threads were From email address validation and [PROPOSAL] Release Plan in this list. http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=9935 The Sender: header is already ok, the problem is that Outlook Express seems to be not behaving well: Outlook Express [considers] as a tampering the fact of having the signature not coming from the sender, and ignores the Sender: header. At that time I sent a probe (see http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=9937) to understand which MUA-s were well behaved, but only Serge and Matthew Pangaro did reply. Now, should we ignore the Outlook Express behaviour and proceed? Or should we look for a signature being checked at the recipient server side? ... Just to see if there are thoughts about this. Any thoughts? Time to get this into CVS so that it is an option. :-) :-)) Vincenzo --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Standard Could Reduce Spam
It seems to me that spam is a big problem that many of us (or perhaps most of us) have ideas about. I guess that most of the work now being done on mail-handling programs (including James) is motivated by a desire to limit spam. In this vein, I have spent most of the last four years working toward a kind of solution. But after four years the best I can say is that I've learned a lot. Also I have a preliminary offering at Mailscreen.net, but I grant this is so blunt and unrefined that it will please almost no one. My work on spam mixes in a heavy dose of my philosophy, which is libertarian. I mistrust government and hope to see solutions developed by private free market entrepreneurs. On my to-do list, after I get caught up in the J2EE course which I'm slogging through http://www.javapassion.com/j2ee/index.html, I want to put up a blog focused on a search for market-oriented network protocols. I posit that basic protocols at the IP level would contain better provisions for assuring the mutual gain of participants if those protocols had evolved in a marketplace between business traders, rather than having been developed on contract for a monolithic power (the US Department of Defense). Rich Hammer my present project: http://mailscreen.net/ resume: http://trilug.org/~rh/resume.html a previous project now in hibernation: http://freenation.org/ Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini wrote: I found this article today: http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,63513,00.html This is something that I already developed last fall at the sender MTA side (AddServerSignature mailet), but stopped because I was counting on having a MUA check at the recipient side, and Outlook Express was not behaving correctly. The threads were From email address validation and [PROPOSAL] Release Plan in this list. This thing could become important in my country (Italy) also because the Italian Government is setting new rules regarding MTAs sending back signed receipt confirmations, in order to have email messages become legally valid etc. I'm going to dig a little around this. Perhaps other countries are doing something similar now ... Any thoughts? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Standard Could Reduce Spam
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,63513,00.html This is something that I already developed last fall at the sender MTA side (AddServerSignature mailet) You and I discussed it in September, at the latest. There should be a record of it in our archives, and I have a copy of the server-signed message you sent to me with the source code on September 16th. but stopped because I was counting on having a MUA check at the recipient side, and Outlook Express was not behaving correctly. Do you recall what the issue was? I would expect to have to rewrite the Sender: header to match the key. The threads were From email address validation and [PROPOSAL] Release Plan in this list. Any thoughts? Time to get this into CVS so that it is an option. :-) --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
