>However, I disagree with the sentiment that senders can tell >receivers to "kill it, don't pass it on" as expressed here. >This implies that senders control the threshold at which receivers >discard mail. I consider this unrealistic.
I think we all agree that receivers will only do what's in their own self-interest, and they'll only take senders' advice if it helps that along. "It's all spam" is about the simplest useful advice a (non) sender can give. In my case, which I don't think is unusual, I get buckets of spam and blowback to subdomains that have never, ever, sent a real message. The domains are the names of computers on my network, which were probably scraped out of usenet or mail archive message IDs. If receivers were to reject or drop all mail purporting to be from those domains, it would be uniformly better both for the receivers (less spam, cheap filter) and for me (less blowback.) _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
