On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 05:57:45PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Monday 10 July 2006 02:17, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 05:02:39PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > Another problem is with hosts that do not accept a message from an MTA > > > unless that MTA is willing to accept replies. This is a common spam > > > prevention measure. > > > > It also prevents mail from setups that use different servers for inbound > > and outbound mail. > > Hmm. I've not seen this kind of sender verification. As I know it, the > receiving MX connects the regular MX for the sender address to see if > *that* is ready to receive mail. Works beautifully if outbound != inbound. > > While very effective, this is admittedly the kind of spam prevention measure > which puts some load on the systems on both ends.
Actually, I don't see it as spam prevention. It is a mean to lock onself out of broken|fascist mail servers and let their users know that it is their server blocking legitimate email and not my users ignoring them. There is no point in accepting a message that cannot be answered (or bounced). The spam prevention is only a nice side effect. -- Blu. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
