On 2006-01-23 13:37:25 -0800, Douglas Otis wrote: > On Jan 23, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > >On 2006-01-23 11:41:56 -0800, Douglas Otis wrote: > >>BATV, much like VERP, offers a solution for preventing any "back- > >>scatter" problem from affecting the users. > > > >Yes, but it has to implemented by the sender. If I implement it, I > >will get less (or even no) backscatter, but it won't reduce the > >amount of "real" spam I get. > > This comment was limited to your conclusion that DKIM or SPF solves > the back-scatter problem. I didn't claim that they solve the problem by themselves. I suggested that anyone implementing the auto-ack scheme should include a way for third parties to protect themselves from getting backscatter. SPF and DKIM were merely examples - I mentioned them because they have already seen some deployment. Additionally, publishing a "v=spf ~all" record is almost no effort and shouldn't have any negative consequences (except that your peers might doubt your sanity). And, as I said, I DON'T LIKE THIS SCHEME and I do not recommend that anybody should implement it. I merely offered a suggestion which might turn a very bad idea into merely a bad idea. BATV solves the the problem of backscatter. No adaptation of the auto-ack scheme required. However, this means that the deployer of the auto-ack scheme expects everybody else to implement batv, which is rude at best. hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer | Ich sehe nun ein, dass Computer wenig |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | geeignet sind, um sich was zu merken. | | | hjp at hjp.at | __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Holger Lembke in dan-am
Attachment:
pgpreIgT50JUz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg