On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:35:58 +0300, Christos Georgiou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your method is/will_not be free (as in beer), as hinted in >http://www.ece.arizona.edu/~edatools/home/email/registry/Form-Sender01.htm >. *That* is a drawback similar to the licensing of the Microsoft's >Sender/Caller-ID scheme. Why not support open, free standards? These are fees for services, not license fees. I don't know how you could miss that. The code is offered under the Python licence, which is the most unrestrictive of any license I know about. One of my goals is to provide an open-source version of what big companies are now paying millions for - spam appliances with proprietary methods. On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:20:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: >[David, in an earlier email] >> reject. 15% will get an immediate accept without filtering, because >> the sender is authenticated and has a good reputation. Eventually, >> all reputable senders will join the 15%, and the 5% will shrink to >> where we can ignore it. > >Two questions you seem to be implicitly assuming particular answers >to: Is widespread authentication a good thing? Does it solve any >problem not solved by Bayesian filtering plus good mail client >support? My first reaction is to answer "no" to both questions, so to >regard your effort as harmful. Might be interesting to hear why you >think it's a good thing, though. I really didn't intend for this to be a discussion of the merits of filtering vs authentication. I worry this will be a long discussion, with no satisfactory conclusion, so I suggest we move these topics to one of the email security forums. My conclusion, after participating in many such discussions, is that both filtering and authentication are necessary tools, and a complete system should have both. -- Dave -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
