nanog mailing list archives
Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
From: Phil Lawlor <phil () agis net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:06:33 -0500
At 12:56 PM 10/29/97 -0600, Cal Thixton - President - ThoughtPort Authority of Chicago wrote:
The problem with the 'Caller-ID' idea is verifying that an email address
is >'valid' (assuming you have a reasonable definition for 'valid'). About the only >thing that sendmail can do is verify a reverse lookup is equal to its forward >lookup. Exactly. I guess the question is, should we build more sender verification into sendmail, on both the sending and receiving side? Phil Lawlor President AGIS Voice - 313-730-1130 Fax - 313-563-6119
Current thread:
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful, (continued)
- 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 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)