Serge, >> * If an ORG like ORBZ.org chooses to query that instead of trying to >> Spam then they are not in breack of any anti-hacker legislation. * >> Mail servers recieving mail (and are unsure of origin), can >> immediately reach back in a new connection and post a RUOR query. >> The policy of the recipient can be to a) trust the response, b) refer >> to a compiled by > > > I think this is my gripe about this approach... why in the world would > I trust the response? I don't see how this approaches creates any > technical barriers, or legal and economic disincentives to spam.
That is true, but it illustrates at least a version of RFC compatability that the mail server maker has implemented. How often is the case that someone mounting a SMTP cooses to make it vulnerable to spamming? Not often I'd say. It is because the administrator has used old software, and accepts the defaults on install. Given the amount of misery they reap after hosting spammers it is difficult to imagine a mail administrator choosing to make it repoond 'no' when 'yes' is more accurate. It is a proposition that allows mail servers to determine how smart the remote mail server's mail administrator is, having just recieved email from it. A way that is standards compliant, and cannot possiblly be construed as a hack attempt. A way that allows a policy of not accepting mail from any server that answers anything other than no to RUOR. If solutions are left to probing of mail servers to gather information *only*, then those doing the probing will find their lives increasingly difficult since DMCA and other laws. Regards, - Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
