On Wed, 26 May 2004, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
One opinion is that other things are broken badly (as you mention
above) so there is nothing wrong with embracing yet another thing that
is broken as long as it is less broken. You may have that view and I
don't. I am strongly against DSNs and C/R systems as well. If you
choose to use a C/R system you contribute to the problem. If you
choose to implement CBV you provide a mechanism for abusing innocent
victims.
I just disagree.
I understand your dislike the cost-shifting, but consider the other
perspective. You're asking me to accept several hundred kilobytes of spam
a day so that you can avoid a few K per day (at most) of traffic from CBV.
That seems pretty selfish.
Secondly, if I don't do CBV, it's very likely you'll get a bounce message
*anyway*, which will generate exactly the same sort of traffic. Because
of the peculiarities of the email system I maintain, it's unable to reject
invalid recipients at SMTP time. CBV means I generate a lot fewer bounce
messages.