At 10:53 AM 8/21/2004 +0200, you wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 07:31:43AM +0800, AccuSpam wrote:
6. In order for a sender to send over the approved IP addresses, if the
sender is not already verified by his access to a local network, then the
only other way that sender can send over the approved IP mail server is to
use authenticated SMTP. If not using authenticated SMTP, then the mail
server would be an open relay.
So now you are worrying about the maybe 5% of people who do not send
through their isp, whereas earlier you defended your own proposal
because it works for the 95%, including your mother, who does what you
excpect them to do.
5% false positives is unheard of in anti-spam!
That is what SPF "-all" could do if 5% did not use the approved mail servers.
Luckily I think you exaggerated in my favor, and I bet it is only about 1%.
Still unacceptable for anti-spam though.
I'll repeat this: PLEASE have this person blocked from the list.
Do really think that blocking opposite input is the way to achieve success?
Designs live or die on their merits. Do not be so afraid of me. Work together
to improve the designs.
Thanks,
Shelby