Re: SPF is harmful. Adopt it.

>On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:58:00AM -0000, James Craig Burley wrote:
>> >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?
>
>Let me remind you of
>
>   The message isn't copied to the receiver's ISP. All the receiver
>   needs is a brief notification that a message is available.

I'm still missing something.  How does Joe User know that the message,
about which he's been notified, is advertising a spammer's web page?

Please be patient and talk me through it.  Assume Joe User has never
before received email from that source (address or outgoing message
store), and that Joe User normally *wants* email from arbitrary new
sources, which is the whole point of all this.

Does Joe User have to "pull" (or otherwise transfer) the message
content from the outgoing message store, in order to know that its
little more than a URL to a spammer web page, rather than being little
more than a URL to something someone legitimately wanted to share with
him, e.g. based on something he posted on his own web page or on a
chat forum?

If not, how does he know?  If so, how doesn't that defeat IM2000's big
advantage(s)?

-- 
James Craig Burley
Software Craftsperson
<http://www.jcb-sc.com>