"Neil" == Neil Brown <neil(_at_)brown(_dot_)name> writes:
Neil> the current infrastructure (of which there are several) are
Neil> fine. But a short term measure that requires lots of people
Neil> to make changes to be really effective is (in my opinion)
Neil> unlikely to be worth the effort.
Authenticating the sender arguably has long term benefits; it's just
that authentictating the sender won't necessarily (in itself) stop
spammers.
Neil> "move on" ?? -- let's get it right the first time
Neil> "reputation services"?? -- no thanks, too centralised.
"move on" was probably a bad choice of words on my part. Maybe I'm
getting my terminology wrong here, but my understanding is that the
proponents of LMAP see it being used in conjunction with reputation
services or acreditation services. LMAP by itself just tells you who
the sender is -- it doesn't tell you whether they're a spammer or not.
-roy