On Mar 11, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:41:48PM -0600, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net
LLC wrote:
On Mar 11, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this
as an anti-spam technique.
Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique,
in my
opinion. Basically, there's one obvious response for spammers
looking to
evade it -- use "real" sender addresses. Where's an easy place to
find
real addresses? On the list of target addresses they're spamming!
This is a red-herring. They already do that. They have been doing
that for a long time. And it has nothing to do with sender
verification.
Sender verification works and works well.
I hate sender verification because it forces me (the sender) to jump
through hoops just for the privilege of sending email to you.
No, it forces you to set up a correct RFC abiding system
I send
a lot of "courtesy" emails to e.g. port maintainers who have problems
with their ports, and when I encounter someone with such a system I
usually don't bother following up (their port just gets marked broken
in the usual way, and they can follow up on it on their own if they
want to).
If your system is following the RFCs then you should have no
problems. YOU should fix your broken system. Sending emails without
a valid from address is disconsiderate. Why should I accept a mail
from an account that violates the RFCs about accepting DSN back?
Chad
---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
