From: Derek J. Balling
Date: 2007-02-07 08:45:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Per user settings
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support
> My experiences contradict this. (See below)
Your experiences can't really contradict what I said, because what I
said is based on widespread adoption which -- thankfully --
sender-callbacks has not achieved.
> I'm curious how / why you think this "Tit-for-Tap" game that we all seem
> to be playing makes mail "less useful". Pleas explain?
Assume "SPAM QUANTITY" = "SQ".
Now implement sender verification. Yay! Short-term SQ is reduced.
Spammers see this, start using "real" sender addresses.
SQ returns to previous value. Boo!
BUT, then all the blowback which was going to BAD addresses before now
suddenly goes to REAL addresses. So all the blowback for bad-recipients,
instead of going to addresses which don't exist, end up in REAL peoples
Assume "BLOWBACK QUANTITY" = "BQ".
Now users are dealing with (SQ+BQ) instead of just (SQ).
A net reduction in the usefulness of e-mail, as there is now *more* crap
in users' inboxes, not less.
> I disagree that
> stopping a spam, and possibly erroneously sending a DSN that does not
> include the spam content is an increase in abuse.
You're under the incorrect assumption that a message has to be "abuse"
to make the system "less useful". Sifting through a couple hundred
bounce messages for a message you didn't even send can make your inbox
just as useless as a hundred erectile dysfunction ads.
> Further more, if my
> system does not even let in most of the system (rejects it during the
> SMTP transaction), thus causing the sending system to deal with bouncing
> is me increasing abuse. I'm simply rejecting abusive content before it
> comes in to my system. Now, if I blindly accept messages and then
> bounce them, yes, however that is not what I'm doing.
Someone's going to generate a DSN there. It may not be *YOU*, but a DSN
is going to get generated somewhere, in all likelihood.
Copyright 2009, 2012 by SnertSoft. All rights reserved.