On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:20:24PM +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote: > Not exactly on SPAM detection rate, but on GPG/sig acceptance. If SA > could validate such sigs, there's a big benefit for *every* recipient, > 'cause if somebody forges e-mails with wrong sigs, it's marked as SPAM > and sorted out, even if the user doesn't have a mail client that can > check that. I sign all my e-mails, but how many that receive it can > check it with their client?
It's worth noting that I've seen signed mails get regularly mangled
when going through mailing lists, which is generally the only place I
see signed mails anyway.
So "bad signature" != spam, nor does "good signature" == non-spam.
Don't try to take sender verification and make it an anti-spam tool --
enough people are confused about SPF. ;)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"The universe is already insane, anything else would be redundant."
- Londo on Babylon 5
pgpPqiX0QVfDt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
