On 7/31/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Signed e-mail can be an effective tool to address SPAM. Signed e-mail can > be validated to know that there is a trusted identity responsible for the > e-mail. It addresses the needs of mobile workers and improves the ability > to use SMTP relays, reducing the need to police e-mail by IP address. We > can validate the authenticity of signed e-mail early, reject e-mail that > fails authentication, and reduce the amount of SPAM congesting the Internet. > Where there is a need for anonymity, "anonymizers" can sign e-mail on behalf > of their clients (as we do with our server-side signing), where the > anonymizer's reputation and ability to block SPAM will effect whether the > e-mail will be accepted downstream.
It's taken years for SPF to be adopted which takes a 2 second DNS change in an organizations and they have a wizard to make the text. Creating a much bigger technical hurdle, possibly require end-users to make this change (depending on whether you want MUA or MTA involvement), and then wait until it's widely adopted, and well, I'll be dead before it's removed some emails from my inbox. Maybe as a whitelist... certainly not going to prevent any spam in my lifetime, though I think the spamassassin people would be a much better group to ask than us. -- Serge Knystautas Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
