> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:46:59 +0100
> From: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software)
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:34:58PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > > Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:15:48 +0100
> > > From: Chris Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Re: TDMA (was Re: Spam filtering software)
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 04:05:57AM -0500, John Buttery wrote:
> > > > Anyway, just out of curiosity, how come you guys aren't using TMDA?
> > > > Just haven't found it yet, or...?
> > >
> > > Probably because it's useless for quite a number of people.
> > >
> > > Much of my incoming mail is in response to enquiries I send out to
> > > trade suppliers and small businesses. If I implemented TMDA they
> > > would have to jump through hoops to get their response to me, it's
> > > difficult enough getting a response from some people anyway so I
> > > suspect that TMDA would reduce the reply rate to negligable
> > > proportions. The alternative of modifying the TDMA 'whitelist' when I
> > > send the enquiry out is similarly flawed (I have to jump through
> > > hoops) and anyway isn't guaranteed to work as they may not respond
> > > from an address I know about.
> >
> > I think you should re-read the tmda docs, especially the client
> > configuration.
> >
> Yes? This assumes that I own a domain and have an unlimited number of
> E-Mail addresses available to me, again not the normal situation.
no. tmda can work on a nullclient. it only requires that
1) your pop3 server stores envelope information in headers
2) the smtp server of your provider accepts addresses with
extensions
--
FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE
1:48PM up 7 days, 19:41, 19 users, load averages: 0.04, 0.06, 0.01
