Re: [spf-discuss] SPF, DKIM, and NIH

alan wrote:
> > The common criterion for dropping is that by rejecting you are providing a free 
> > test machine for spammers to keep trying various alternatives until they get 
> > the message through. (Well, transferring SA comments to a multi-line rejection 
> > text isn't usually provided.)
> the opposing view is of course by rejecting the spammer usually dosn't profit
> accepted messages {even if spamfoldered or quarantined} are still counted as 
> deliveries and thus result in profit
People can resort to creative accounting by various means. 
Insincerity is also implied in the oleaginous hypocrisy of using the 
term /quarantine/, as if messages were bound to be reconsidered 
after some time...
> also rejections from false-positives give the sender an opportunity for 
> response, out of band contact for whitelisting, or other remediation
> accept>dump gives no way for sender or recipient to detect and remedy false 
> positives
They can routinely ask for disposition notifications, auto-whitelist 
email addresses, and similar palliatives. Of course, spam does 
worsen mail reliability.

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ 
[http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com