On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 5/6/13, Les Mikesell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> How so, when they add setup and processing effort and don't add value?
>> It is the content that determines whether I think something is spam
>> or want to read it, not the mechanics of how the message was sent or
>> the forwarding path (which I may have set up myself).
>
> So you claim that message forgery isn't a problem? Get a clue.
No, but I claim that wasting time and effort on things that don't
solve the problem are a waste of time and effort. So you claim the
problem is solved? Does an end-user recipient have a standard way of
seeing who thinks any particular message was forged and why?
> I agree that spaminess and source authentication are separate issues, but
> most recipients don't want forged messages either, spam or not.
Do you agree that end user recipients should have the final decision
about message disposition? And that they probably do want forwarded
messages whether or not the forwarder handles them in a way you deem
appropriate?
--
Les Mikesell
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected]
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
