On 10/05/02, Dan Birchall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I don't think the "postage" model has to be
> quite as complex as that. Implementing it at
> the MX-to-MX step should be sufficient. Receiving
> MX asks for "postage" and the sending MX better
> have some ready.
While that is indeed the most logical way to apply a postage
model to SMTP, we already know that spammers don't play by
the rules...for example, they'd get an Earthlink dialup
account to spam Earthlink's customers, and so forth.
Given that and as-yet-unaddressed issues of implementation,
postage could only be a second or third stage solution.
--
J.D. Falk "You can bomb the world to pieces,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> but you can't bomb it into peace."
-- Michael Franti
_______________________________________________
spamcon-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers
Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body
of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
