John Leslie wrote: > I'd say it has a far better idea than current graylisting does. > The originator has logs to see whether the URI has been accessed: I > see no reason the originator would take down an unreferenced URI in > less than a few days.
But again, you're not responding to one of my original criticisms: One of the banes of running a large-scale e-mail system is clogged queues. This proposal essentially _mandates_ clogged queues because you _have_ to keep the message around for "a few days". Furthermore, it's trivial for spammers to maintain a URL forever because they can generate the message on the fly, whereas it's extremely burdensome for high-volume legitimate senders to maintain the URLs. As far as I can see, this extension will be ignored by spammers and will punish those legitimate senders who decide to use it, so I don't really see the point. Regards, David.
