On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:17:08AM +0300, Andriy G. Tereshchenko wrote:
|
| Quote: "Making it easy for senders to obtain accreditation lets receivers
assume guilty unless proven innocent"
| Okay. I would like to make an apology to person I've called "racist".
| But statement above clearly limits my human rights. It takes away presumption
of innocence from me.
| Please, tell me - how I will be able to receive accreditation for my
24.odessa.ua domain ?
| We are not sending 10000's of emails per week, all communication for me and
my partners limited to our clients or contacting others
| persons on behalf of out clients. This is at most 20-30 emails per day.
| Do you propose me to pay for SSL certificate? Or pay for BondedSender? Okay.
No, I don't expect you to pay for accreditation.
I expect you not to pay, and I expect the mail you send to
undergo spam filtering. We will be in the same boat --- I'm
not really interested in paying $300/year for mengwong.com,
either. I'm hoping very hard that systems like Gossip will
find ways to list mengwong.com and 24.odessa.ua but I'm not
holding my breath.
Domains who don't send enough mail to register in reputation
systems will fall into the gray area and be subject to
content filtering, etc. If they want to get out of the gray
area, then they are welcome to obtain some sort of
accreditation. That accreditation can be monetary or
otherwise. If they are satisfied with getting spamfiltered,
then they do not have to pay; instead, they can try to
convince receiver ISPs to not spamfilter their mail.
Companies who want to exempt their mail from spam filtering
are the ones I expect to pay for monetary and other types of
accreditation.
You're probably right that domains for which there is
insufficient reputation data outnumber domains which can be
confidently distinguished. However, over time, as more
domains publish SPF records, and as reputation systems
improve, that problem should diminish.
Are there any other ways to beat the "domain churn" problem?