Re: SPF is harmful. Adopt it.
James Craig Burley <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.im2000 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>No, you totally missed Jonathon's point. His point was that if some spammer >sets up a website selling his stuff, Joe User doesn't complain about the web >pages. Joe User complains about the email he receives (and pays for >receiving) advertising that web page. [...] >With IM2000, the cause for Joe User's concern is gone. Maybe I missed something in the subthread, but... ...how does Joe User know that the email he receives (and pays for receiving) is advertising a spammer's web page, unless he first "pulls" that email via IM2000? And if he *has* to "pull" that email first, doesn't that defeat the One Big Advantage of IM2000 over SMTP? Now, if he can precisely identify the source of such spam and tell his system to no longer accept message notifications pertaining to that source, or to mark them as "likely spam" before he's likely to "pull" the corresponding messages, he'll save himself the trouble. But if he can do *that*, under an IM2000 regime, why can't he do that *today*, under the SMTP regime, via blacklisting sources of unwanted SMTP email? -- James Craig Burley Software Craftsperson <http://www.jcb-sc.com>