While I believe in SPF and use it.... I don't actually like adding any
specific technology into a bill like that. The bill should deal with the
legality of Spamming and the consequences of Spamming. Not defensive
measures you should or should NOT take.
Possible include something that says Spam is allowed if it meets a
specific criteria like putting something in the headers that says its
Spam so filters can very easily remove it for those that don't want it
and allow those that do (according to Spammers there are people who do)
to receive it. It should also never use spoofed from or reply-to
addresses, so on and so on...
Vince Lotito wrote:
Hi, I’ve been using SPF and following this community for a couple of
years. I applaud the work of the SPF community.
I was contacted last week by a NJ State Assemblyman for my feedback on
an assembly bill title “The New Jersey SPAM Deterrence Act”. In short
the bill was not that comprehensive, and after reading my suggestions
the Assemblyman has decide to redraft the bill.
Therefore, I was looking to incorporate SPF into that legislation. So
with that, I am looking for ideas, suggestion and feedback from the
community…
Vince
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735