Re: proposal for built-in spam burden & email privacy protection

On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 16:53 +1200, Franck Martin wrote:
> I wonder if we could add to this list, that non digitally signed e-
> mails and invalid digitally signed e-mails get held for approval.
I don't think that will scale too well when the list gets active.  And
white-listing someone once they're been approved gives the spammers a
tidy list of which sender addresses to fake.

"Be liberal in what you accept" should apply to the IETF mail server as
well.
> I would be nice that the IETF members of this list show the way by
> enabling at least GPG or s/mime for digital signing of all their
> messages to the list.
Don't get me wrong: encouraging people to use pgp is a good idea, but
making it a requirement before accepting it is a policy decision that
the end user should be making, not the list.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part