I'm still listening at the moment but I found Jim Lyon's answer relating
to 'possible optimizations' somewhat odd. I'm curious how many people
here would agree with it.
Jim states that 'a spammer does not wish to waste his bandwidth anymore
than you do' and effectively implies that spammers would care about
SUBMITTER and thus in its presence they would avoid further attempted
delivery or something of this nature.
My personal experience is that the majority of spam comes in via hacked
MS machines in which case bandwidth is of little thought.
This raises me to the point of this message. Does anyone here have
statistical information relating to the concentration of e-mail's
originating from 'likely hacked/compromised' machines. Whilst I realize
such a value isn't necessarily easy to quantify I would still like to
hear anything anyone has to say.
Cheers,
James
--
James Couzens,
Programmer
( ( (
((__)) __lib__ __SPF__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part