On 11/28/2003 8:04 AM, Alan DeKok sent forth electrons to convey:
> "Hector Santos" <winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
>> I don't see any flaw in this logic. Anyone care to comment?
>
>
> Try it with AOL's mail system. They're getting a billion spam
> messages a day. Band-aids don't work if the patient is bleeding from
> every square inch of their skin.
AOL's broken servers should not be considered a dealbreaker.
Sorry, but I just have to destroy the screwy idea that any anti-spam
scheme AOL (Or the M$-Yahoo-AOL gang) won't agree to isn't useful.
<soapbox>
1. AOL posts a FAQ to nanae that is some 4 YEARS out of date. (MIT
posts it for them.)
2. AOL fights good antispam legislation:
<http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/servlet/gov.ca.senate.democrats.pub.members.memDisplayPress?district=sd28&ID=1755>
3. AOL bounces spam to alleged senders instead of refusing it during
the SMTP session.
</soapbox>
If AOL decides to put 0.0.0.0/0 in its LMTP entry, will that be a
dealbreaker? Not IMO.
The method under discussion is not a new idea, yes. It's a band-aid,
but so is LMTP. Both ARE USEFUL! Especially as part of a
spam-scoring-and-tagging system.
LMTP is better because it's not something spammers can, as Yakov
mentioned in a great post, easily defeat once it's prevalent enought
that they care about it. I get lots of spam 'From:'/'MAIL FROM' my own
email address already.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg