On 16-05-27 09:19 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
It's also a bad idea operationally, as it will break things like
loop detection, it will complicate problem diagnosis, and it will
break anti-spam/anti-abuse mechanisms that rely on Message-ID.
---rsk
+1
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
Have been watching this thread for a bit, and do have an opinion.
First of all, I see a lot of talk about 'COI' (Confirmed Opt-In), rather
than the term 'CDOI' (Confirmed Double Opt-in) and the reason I point it
out, is that there is a lot of loose definitions of both 'opt-in' and
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Michael Peddemors
wrote:
> Have been watching this thread for a bit, and do have an opinion.
>
> First of all, I see a lot of talk about 'COI' (Confirmed Opt-In), rather
> than the term 'CDOI' (Confirmed Double Opt-in) and the reason I
The problem with the, "Please Reply" method is that it can lead to mailbombing
the target.
We've seen it happen.
Now if the intended subscriber could send a single message to the mailinglist,
and it could be easily proved that it either came from them, or someone that
their mail admin could
> But I agree with you completely on the, "loose definition" issue, and have a
> rather nasty story about that.
> Always get the person who asserts their doing it to tell you exactly what
> that term means to them.
These are the definitions that we use, and that we use in working with our
> I personally think that ESP's should make an effort to carefully separate
> their confirmed double opt-in mailings, from single opt-in mailers..
We have a lot of ESPs as customers of our email reputation certification
service, and we *always* urge them to segregate their IPs by opt-in level
On 5/27/16 9:49 AM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
Have been watching this thread for a bit, and do have an opinion.
First of all, I see a lot of talk about 'COI' (Confirmed Opt-In), rather
than the term 'CDOI' (Confirmed Double Opt-in) and the reason I point it
out, is that there is a lot of loose
On 5/27/16 9:49 AM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
While it might be more 'attractive' to offer a simple 'click to
confirm', why are you not using the more standard 'Please Reply To' this
message if you want to receive these messages?
This would solve the problem being discussed, and ensure that the
On 16-05-27 10:08 AM, Michael Wise wrote:
The problem with the, "Please Reply" method is that it can lead to mailbombing
the target.
We've seen it happen.
Of course, someone could use a forged address when sending the
'confirmation' email, but how they would get mail bombed I am unsure of.
Thanks, Vick. I'm curious, what initially lead you to exclude the
message-id from your signature?
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Vick Khera wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> I don't sign my message-id. In fact, I let my MTA create the Message-ID
> header and I sign before that in my
10 matches
Mail list logo