True statement, but that means the senders of the other 5% are now left
in the dark as to what happened to their mail.
Is there a proposed solution to that?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]
On Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:51 PM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: NDNs considered harmful
I note, again fwiw, that I've been trying to get various advocates
for a ban (or near-ban) on NDNs to write that separate document and
propose a specific model at regular intervals since well before
2821 was completed.
I'm new to that particular topic. Can you explain its motivation or
point me to a discussion thread that lays it out so I can get some
context?
Nothing surprising -- on today's Internet where 95% of mail is spam
and essentially all the spam has forged return addresses, no matter
how careful you are, most of your NDNs will be blowback to people who
didn't send the mail.
R's,
John