On Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:33 PM -0500, John Kelly wrote: > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:53:28 -0500, "Seth Goodman" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The improper DNS false positive rate is low, less than 2%. > > > It's a pity, but very few people think in terms of winning the > > spam war anymore. Most systems would consider this false > > positive rate unusable by a large margin. The larger the > > provider, the less workable this solution. > > That's the fear factor. > > But once you get a grip and hang on for a while, you realize that > sacrificing 2% is a piece of cake.
If users value reliably getting their messages more than they value spam reduction, which seems to be the case, it will cost you. Large system admins are not fools. They have tried this and people don't accept it. It works nicely for small systems but the administrative overhead makes it hard to run a large system that way. It's also grossly unfair to people in some developing regions who don't have control over their rDNS and we can't tell them to "get a grip". I hope things change and we can require forward == reverse in the future. If that happens on a large scale, spam-friendly providers can just use dynamic IP hostnames that are not detectable via regexp :) -- Seth Goodman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
