Again I will repeat (4th time in this mailing list) that AccuSpam is *NOT*
a challenge-response anti-spam system.
How is it not? From what I've gathered, you send a message to a
subscriber, and if they haven't white-listed you you get an
auto-response telling you to verify that you're not a spammer. This is
pretty much the same as every other challenge-response scheme I've
seen. (One person referred to them as PTYLM ("prove that you love me")
schemes; I find that description amusing.)
If you go back and read my posts, I already answered this twice.
I hope this is the last time someone will ask the same simple question 3 times
and force me to answer it 3 times.
The answer is that AccuSpam does *NOT* require the sender to do anything in
order for the recipient to receive the message. This it is a Challenge Non
Response (CNR) system.
The response is merely to check if the sender is a non-existent address (if it
bounces back).
I already wrote that in the post which you are responding to:
"The users and owners of anti-spam systems that detect non-existent address by
sending a response..."
The users and owners of anti-spam systems that detect non-existent address
by sending a response could also say to you that mailing list are inherently
broken, if they do not allow generalized SMTP functionality.
Mailing lists have been around a long time, and they aren't going
anywhere. Besides, I really resent sending mail to someone (or, worse,
a mailing list) and getting a "this account protected by Foobar
Spamguard, to buy your own copy go here" message back. To me, these
systems are just another form of spam.
As I said, you have your perspective and so do the users of those systems.
My point is that finding a solution (such as the one from Guy) is more useful
than your response declaring that other perspective should cease to exist.
Thanks,
Shelby