David Nicol wrote:
Andreas Saurwein wrote:
At 18/2/2004 22:26 Wednesday, you wrote:
Comments, please?
Only one: Which halfway sane mail administrator has VRFY enabled
nowadays?
Are you trying to introduce better address harvesting support for
ESMTP or what?
Sorry, I dont get it.
the proposed VRFYVIA does not imply VRFY.
Does LMAP etc. have a response to the "it would facilitate harvesting"
argument?
That would apply here too.
I think Andreas was keying on the subject line you used and the way you
phrased your proposal. This has disadvantages similar to VRFY, in that it
could potentially be used to verify the authenticity of addresses if one
isn't careful with the responses.
On the other hand, we've seen that spammers have little to no motivation to
prune invalid addresses from their lists, as they have little cost either in
sending or in dealing with bounces.
LMAP has no response to 'it would facilitate harvesting' because anyone who
reads the discussion document (not sure about the specific implementations)
can see that it doesn't. It gives no information about any specific mailbox
specification, only the relationship between an IP and a domain.
I'll comment on your proposal separately.
Philip Miller
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg