On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 09:31:27AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
} [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
}
} >(My pobox.com address, on the other hand, gets plenty of spam, because
} >pobox's antispam methods are very poor. I only wish they used DUL,
} >which would get rid of most of the spam from that direction.)
}
} It's not good enough for an antispam method to simply be effective, it
} should also be selective. The DUL blocks non-relaying, nonspammers,
} just because it doesn't like the looks of their domain name...the
No, it blocks people who could easily send mail out through the mail
servers of their ISP. If pobox used DUL (or more accurately, if pobox
allowed its customers to choose which antispam services they wanted
their mail filtered through, since that is what I really want), it
would be both effective and wouldn't drop any mail that I want to get.
People who use variable IP dialups and are too stubborn to use their
providers SMTP servers to relay won't be able to reach me. Big deal.
But this has been discussed on this list before.
} baby/bathwater scenario. But the War on Spam, like the War on Drugs
} and the War on Terrorism cares little about collateral damage like
} me.
}
} Want to stop spam dead in its tracks? Turn off your smtp daemon.
}
} -Dave
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
