[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "Header Reordering", yet again

2005-05-27 17:39:26

At 08:05 PM 5/27/2005 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
On Fri May 27 2005 18:49, David MacQuigg wrote:

> We don't expect every sender to be
> compliant, just the ones that want to be trusted as Public Mail
> Servers.  This may be a small number at first.  Then others will discover
> the benefits of becoming compliant - bypass the spam filtering.

Past experience with SPF indicates that spammers -- who have financial
incentive -- will be early adopters, and legitimate mailers who don't
conform to your preconceived notions will be harmed.  The spammers
will claim that because they comply with your scheme, they aren't
really spammers at all.  The scheme -- like SPF -- would be doubly

We seem to be losing context again. The question is whether we can specify that Trusted Forwarders MUST NOT reorder trace headers, using the same language as the words from RFC-2822 that you snipped. What does it matter if spammers conform to this requirement? How will legitimate mailers be hurt? If they send through a forwarder that is not trusted, they have to go through the same spam filter that they have always gone through. Using a Trusted Forwarder is a plus. Not using one is not a minus.

You seem to have a "preconceived notion" that all change is wrong. Let's avoid the personal attacks and focus on facts. You could have said "don't conform to your expectations", and been less inflammatory.

************************************************************     *
* David MacQuigg, PhD     email: david_macquigg at     *  *
* IC Design Engineer            phone:  USA 520-721-4583      *  *  *
* Analog Design Methodologies                                 *  *  *
*                                 9320 East Mikelyn Lane       * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C.            Tucson, Arizona 85710          *
************************************************************     *

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