> Erik Naggum made an interesting comment. He said that spam should be > handled at the transport level. Greg's work on doing filtering at SMTP > time accomplishes this and makes a lot of sense. When a message is > rejected, the sending mail server is the one that has to deal with it. > In the case of spam, the sending server is often an open rely. Letting > it handle the bounces is sweet justice. :-) In the case of a false positive, it has the added advantage that at least the poor sender, falsely accused of sending spam, gets a bounce and may try to try again. > I bring this up because "STMP time filtering" makes a bypass mechanism > work much better. With a system like TMDA, confirmation notices usually > generate double-bounces. Instead, we could reject the message with a > 5xx error that includes instructions on how to bypass the filter (e.g. > include a cookie in the body of the message). Do you still believe that TMDA is the only answer to spam? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4