Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re: Problems with SPF, solutions, and a

> As long as nobody else gave a better technical description of spam,
> which can be used to design technical counter measures, fighting
> sender forgery is still the best we can do.
>
> Your point of view that this has no relationship to spam and therefore
> has to be kept out is counterproductive, because there is no better
> way to do it yet. Following you would mean to not fight spam at all.

Once again, I hear "if we can't do something useful, we'll do something
useless instead."  No. we're not going to do that.

There are other ASRG subgroups, but before we give up on this one, I'm
still open to suggestions about how LMAP might improve the actual spam
situation.  We don't have to define spam, all halfway plausible
definitions of spam define the same set of messages, so use any definition
of spam you want.

Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.