Mark Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The problem, as you point out, is effectively using it. In order to > use this to send both you and me a spam, they'd need to include your > message-id in the email to you and my message-id in the email to me. > And that increases the expense of bulk email since each email has to > be customized.
Yup. > It may be more expensive to send spam than it used to be I'd consider just this a small victory. > but still not cost prohibative to simply instruct a computer to > automatically customize the spams so that they'll have a higher > degree of deliverability. You're sure about this? It may be cost prohibitive to quite a few bulk-mailers. > In any case, I don't plan to use it. I think I may try experimenting with it for awhile to see how it works. The important point to remember is that TMDA isn't contingent upon this feature. We can simply abandon it if it becomes ineffectual. > Do you plan on implementing this feature to default to on or off? It's already implemented. Did you see my previous messages? You can already do this using a regex in 'headers' or 'headers-file'. So, I just plan to document it in FAQ 5.5 as an alternative to BARE_APPEND and using a dated Reply-To. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
