On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
My intuition tells me spammers are more likely to have bad
addresses than legitimate bulk e-mailers.
you're probably right. but that doesn't mean it's reasonable to punish
those who happen to have lots of bad mail addresses.
Well, any anti-spam scheme will have its side effects. This is a pretty
mild side-effect, I think
consider the organization that mails out one announcement per year to
its members. lots of people will change addresses in that year. is that
organization's mail somehow illegitimate because its addresses bounce?
No. That's a side-effect, and such organizations will need to work harder
to keep their lists clean. (Do any organizations *really* mail out that
infrequently?)
for that matter, is a spammer's mail any less annoying simply because it
deletes addresses that do bounce?
In order to delete addresses that bounce, the spammer must be able to receive
bounce notifications, and therefore becomes more traceable -- the #1 goal
of many other proposals on this forum.
--
David.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg