On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 04:47:08PM +0100, Henrik Edlund wrote:
| On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Thomas R. Stephenson wrote:
| TRS> Is a 5% false alarm rate acceptable to the users? management?
| TRS> anybody?
|
| A 50% false alarm rate is acceptable to me as long as I stop receiving 98%
| spam every day.
The best way to answer this question is to change the frame.
If the major ISPs can, together with the IETF, demonstrate leadership
and unequivocally state, "THIS PRACTICE IS DEPRECATED", people will
acknowledge that a practice is broken.
Blocking sites without PTR records ("rDNS") became a lot more acceptable
after AOL started doing it.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡