I agree. It won't hurt to have it.
My only thought is the consideration on how to help the idea of "auto client
detection" by advertising it more upfront (i.e, greeting).
They may not support this specific proposal from the "complex" standpoint of
the extra requirements, SOLICIT=, Solicitation: header, etc, but they
might use the basic "NO SOLICITATON" seen on the "door" as they pass by the
store, to not enter the store. After all, isn't this one of the basic
premise and human analogy used for this proposal?
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnt Gulbrandsen" <arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no>
Cc: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>;
<ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>; "Carl Malamud"
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'A No Soliciting SMTP Service Extension' to Proposed
Is there a significant number of spammers that would actually take the
time to look for a No Soliciting marker, and actually abide by it?
Mainsleaze only, I think.
So, is there a significant amount of mainsleaze? I think yes. Not major,
That's just the view from where I'm sitting. If I'm wrong, NO-SOLICITING
at least shouldn't hurt.