--Boundary-02=_soa7+MBR5etzOe/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline
On Sunday 15 June 2003 10:35 pm, -ray wrote: > I agree it is not "the" solution, but it is a solution. There are > technically better ways to deal with spam, the main problem being the SMTP > protocol is inheritently incapable of dealing with spam. Something i read > recently that looks promising is Reverse MX > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-01.txt). > Basically, the receiving MTA does a DNS looking to see if the sending ip > is listed in the reverse mx record of the domain you say the mail is from. > If not, the mail is rejected. This is very close to what AOL does already. They siimply reverse lookup t= he=20 IP you're sending from to make sure there's a match. It's not to hard to s= et=20 up your mail server to make sure that there is. It would be harder to make= =20 sure the MX record for your domain, whatever.com, is=20 my-cable-modem-forward-lookup.com > Seems to be a simple, pretty effective solution. It will stop a lot of > mail forgeries. And it will make spammers start using their own servers > to send mail, which makes the cost of spamming skyrocket. Which is fine > by me. > > ray =2D-=20 Scott Harney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "...and one script to rule them all." gpg key fingerprint=3D7125 0BD3 8EC4 08D7 321D CEE9 F024 7DA6 0BC7 94E5 --Boundary-02=_soa7+MBR5etzOe/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA+7aos8CR9pgvHlOURAq2VAJ9LaaxeBQ5/q+89fgpHc5te7Ph2pgCdFCd2 3zJftgsGOleI5QEALJr1cdM= =yopE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_soa7+MBR5etzOe/--
