** Reply to note from "Peter A. Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 6 Apr 2004 21:51:34
+1000
> It's getting harder and harder to stop spam without inconveniencing innocent
> bystanders.
Ok, I understand this, but I really think the problems with rbls are by far
outweighting the benefits they introduce.
We all agree we *MUST* fight spam (isn't that the reason we are here on this list?),
but there are a lot of
different means...
> My ISP here (Bigpond) is about to implement blocking port 25 for all their
> dynamic IP customers.
Good! That's ok with me, as soon as their smtp server, which I'm then forced to use is
not blacklisted!
> As for a real solution to spam? I think in principal it's quite easy. No mail
> server should accept mail from any mail server that is not correctly
> configured. ie should have correct reverse MX records, reject mails with
> forged headers, etc. If this was done, spamming would become irrelevant.
Good again! I even implemented SPF for the domains I handle... now I just wish other
servers would check :(
bye
av.
_______________________________________________
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca
MIMEDefang mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
