> On 02/11, Henrik K wrote: > > method of whitelisting. You can't seriously expect to block on some > > attribute that not everyone can or bothers to change (DNS). None of this
On 11.02.10 16:34, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: > I am not suggesting that anyone block anything based on MTX at this time. you have been doing that, afaics. > I suggest using it for whitelisting (small negative score, not absolute > whitelisting) alone until it is more broadly in use. You suggested rejecting everything that fails MTX check (everything that does not have the D.C.B.A.mtx.<domain> record). > Except for those who are willing to cause a small number of false > positives, like me. Most of them have implemented SPF checking long ago. > It's funny how, for just believing I may have come up with an idea that is > new and useful for dealing with spam, I am consistently attacked. Because > people often believe that, and they're almost always wrong. I can't > blame you, purely statistically speaking, I'm probably wrong. And I > assure you that fact has not slipped my mind. We are not attacking you, but your proposal. You are telling nice things about it but you have not explained how they would be impemented. Read my last mail in this thread where I've asked you how exactly you imagine the MTX not to "break" forwarding. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Fucking windows! Bring Bill Gates! (Southpark the movie)
