John Leslie wrote:
I'd say it has a far better idea than current graylisting does.
The originator has logs to see whether the URI has been accessed: I
see no reason the originator would take down an unreferenced URI in
less than a few days.
But again, you're not responding to one of my original criticisms: One
of the banes of running a large-scale e-mail system is clogged queues.
This proposal essentially _mandates_ clogged queues because you _have_
to keep the message around for "a few days".
Furthermore, it's trivial for spammers to maintain a URL forever
because they can generate the message on the fly, whereas it's
extremely burdensome for high-volume legitimate senders to maintain
As far as I can see, this extension will be ignored by spammers and
will punish those legitimate senders who decide to use it, so I don't
really see the point.