ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

All members of "we" please raise your hands.

2004-09-13 21:19:57

PF> It's pretty sad that people like the author of this article we
PF> got a link to still see 1:1 mapping between "remove spam" and
PF> "minimize the number of fake sender addresses". I thought "we"
PF> as a collective had educated enough people to not get articles
PF> like this.

Does this "we" include those who are, right now, educating people with
the following?

"SPF reduces inbound spam."
-- <URL:http://spf.pobox.com./execsumm.html>

"If the message fails SPF tests, it's a forgery.
That's how you can tell it's probably a spammer."
-- <URL:http://spf.pobox.com./faq.html>
(That first sentence is a lie, of course.)

"Eventually, as SMTP improves its immunity to spam,
we hope spammers will get discouraged."
-- <URL:http://spf.pobox.com./faq.html>

"'Why should SPF succeed when similar proposals have failed
in the past?'  The spam problem was never as bad in the past
as it is now."
-- <URL:http://spf.pobox.com./faq.html>

"Saving the world from spam is an expensive duty."
-- <URL:http://spf.pobox.com./donations.html>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>