nanog mailing list archives
Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry () piermont com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:22:11 -0500
Phil Lawlor writes:
At 02:34 PM 10/28/97 -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:Properly configured sendmail's do this, mostly.^^^^^^ I am not a sendmail expert, but I am told that it is in the forgery area that it could be improved.
SMTP in general has no mechanism whatsoever to prevent forgeries. .pm
Current thread:
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful, (continued)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Phil Lawlor (Oct 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Jay R. Ashworth (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Phil Lawlor (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful David Bowie (Oct 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Jay R. Ashworth (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Phil Lawlor (Oct 28)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Richard Welty (Oct 29)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful John A. Tamplin (Oct 29)
- 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 Phil Lawlor (Oct 28)
- 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)