how the board might look a few moves ahead.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 08:46:49PM +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
| But John's objection is on another level: If it doesn't stop spam
| even if it is fully deployed, because spammers can simply publish LMAP
| information like anybody else, then that scheme doesn't do what it is
| designed to do (it may have some other benefit, like stopping bounce
| messages, though).

People tend to think these proposals are designed to be FUSSPs, and then
attack them when they turn out to be not a magic bullet.  These
straw-man arguments are not constructive.  Yes, spammers will respond,
but the bigger question is whether we are taking the game in the right
direction.

My thoughts on this are at:

  http://archives.listbox.com/[email protected]/200402/0838.html

For your convenience, the links inside that message are:

  http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html#churn
  http://archives.listbox.com/[email protected]/200311/0118.html
  http://archives.listbox.com/[email protected]/200401/1505.html
also
  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.asrg.smtpverify/130