Guy,
Bump me again via private email in about 1 month. By then the AccuSpam FAQ
should contain a mention of mailing lists, then you can remind me that I intend
to give you a public credit for the idea.
You may or may not be first, but you made us aware, so that is still credit in
my view.
Thanks,
Shelby
At 07:21 PM 8/21/2004 -0400, you wrote:
It was my idea. I bet I was not the first to think of it.
But if I am the first, sure royalty-free.
If you have any credits lists, give me credit for the idea!
But not a requirement.
That goes for anyone.
Guy Watkins
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of
AccuSpam
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 4:52 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: "RE: [spf-discuss] Which address of this list should auto-responses
go?"
Guy wrote:
Ok, how is he going to know it is a real list and not a new form of spam?
Is there a list of real list servers?
Thanks for understanding the issue.
Maybe, when the auto responder receives an email from a list that the auto
responder and never seen before, it should send the response to the person
that it was addressed to. If they never accept the response, then the auto
responder system will block that list, or at least block it for that
person.
But if multiple emails come from the list do not send multiple responses,
your users would not like that!
Very good idea! Do you give me royalty-free license to use that idea (just
in case it is not in prior art)?
At least this way, if a person does forget to whitelist the list beforehand,
then only one member of list will get an auto-response and only once.
Very clever Guy! I like it. Will implement if you post reply giving
royalty-free license to your idea.
Ralf Döblitz
The user should have whitelisted the list at the time he subscribed to it.
But humans are not perfect (except maybe you Ralf?)
Guy provides a reasonable solution above in case human makes a mistake.
David Brodbeck wrote:
Situations like this are why automated challenge-response anti-spam
systems
are inherently broken.
Again I will repeat (4th time in this mailing list) that AccuSpam is *NOT* a
challenge-response anti-spam system.
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.
Some people (Guy) are interested in solutions. Other people are interested
in being "correct". It is quite clear in life which type of person
accomlishes more solutions.
Thanks,
Shelby
-------
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
-------
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