nanog mailing list archives
Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
From: Phil Lawlor <phil () agis net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 20:42:17 -0500
At 04:00 PM 10/29/97 -0800, Derek Andree wrote:
Phil Lawlor wrote:Exactly. I guess the question is, should we build more sender verification into sendmail, on both the sending and receiving side?It would seem like a nice feature for Sendmail, but do you think it is realistic to assume that everyone would upgrade? I know of many hosts which use "outdated" versions of Sendmail. Then you would be faced with the question of whether to only allow connections from the latest version of sendmail (with the sender verification), which would limit it's usefulness.
Right. Companies that don't have a need to upgrade, won't go through the expense. In many areas, caller ID is an optional feature that costs more to have. I found it very useful earlier this year when someone posted my home phone number on the Internet. If spam is really a big problem for an organization, than they will go through the pain to solve it. Phil Lawlor President AGIS Voice - 313-730-1130 Fax - 313-563-6119
Current thread:
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Justin W. Newton (Oct 30)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Greg A. Woods (Oct 30)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Perry E. Metzger (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Todd R. Stroup (Oct 28)
- RE: Spam Control Considered Harmful Jon Lewis (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Phil Lawlor (Oct 29)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Derek Andree (Oct 29)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Phil Lawlor (Oct 29)
- Message not available
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Jay R. Ashworth (Oct 29)