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

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:42:40AM -0500, John R Levine wrote:
> >
> > It allows to limit the number of mails sent (e.g. per day or after
> > business hours) by a PC or to detect if an PC is sending an unusual
> > amount of mails. There is a solution to this.
> 
> Of course.  ISPs need to do that now.  But I don't see how LMAP makes any
> difference, because they already know what their network ranges are.


I'm not talking about ISPs. I'm talking about plain corporate
networks. Many people still require that every/many PCs in the 
network are able to send e-mail.

On the other hand it should not be able to send thousands of 
spam or worm messages. 

Dynamic authorization allows to do that and to detect whether such 
a PC is sending more than e.g. 20 mails a day or more than 5 mails
after business hours.







> > - Use an MUA which can display the envelope. Better MUAs do that.
> >   Others will have to learn it.
> 
> I think a purported solution that expects that everyone will get a new MUA
> isn't a very practical solution.



You seem to prefer to intentionally misunderstand everything you 
don't like. "everyone will get a new MUA" is just nonsense. Most
MUAs are able to display the envelope. And if not, in the 
RMX draft I proposed to add the verified sender name to the Received line.









> > - Spammer friendly domain resellers will certainly be blacklisted.
> 
> They aren't now, and we know who they are.  Why will LMAP make any
> difference?

Because until now it was impossible to do it. With LMAP it becomes
possible and feasible.  Even if you don't like it.







> We know who the spammer-friendly providers are now.  See
> http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso.  Why will LMAP make any difference?

Because today there is nothing which would allow to recognize that
a mail came from those spammers. With LMAP, this will be possible. 
That's why LMAP will make the difference.


Hadmut