On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 04:46:24AM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:37:45PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > On 2004-06-25, Paul Johnson penned: > > > --=-=-= > > > > > > "Monique Y. Mudama" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >> You can use procmail, tmda, or any other filtering app for this. > > >> Here's what I have in my tmda configuration: > > > > > > Don't use TMDA. Challenge-response considered harmful. > > > > > > http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/challenge-response.html > > > > Challenge-response isn't the only thing tmda does. > > Granted. > > It's the primary selling point of the tool, however. And much of the > information used to sell it is just plain wrong. This has been detailed > many, many times. > > Jason Mastaler accepts criticism so graciously he's banned me from any > mail access to his domain. Go figure. That's adult, open, honest, and > principled. > > But we'll let the intelligent folks here do the math for themselves: > > http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/2003-September/007390.html > http://www.linux.ie/pipermail/ilug/2003-September/006931.html > http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/2003-September/007393.html > http://mla.libertine.org/tmda-users/2003-09/msg00270.html > > > There's really nothing to argue about.
Karsten, what I really don't get is why a person like you who likes doing research and pressing his points, can't be a little bit more objective now and then. I agree with you (took some time, granted, remember that thread many months ago started by that non-person?) that C-R isn't a good solution to spam, but, if you look at it objectively, there are some points stated in your C-R rant that don't apply to tmda. You should grant them that, I think. > Peace. Peace, indeed. David -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus. Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
