On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 17:29 +0200, Hanno Hecker wrote: > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:40:34 -0400 > Guy Hulbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 15:12 +0200, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > > > [0] There's a draft RFC for an extension which I would like to implement > > > some day, but it won't solve the problem until it is also implemented by > > > most clients. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject-05 > > > > ? > More likely this one: > http://www.courier-mta.org/draft-varshavchik-verp-smtpext.txt
It seems closer. Both seem to involve end-user preferences. As far as I can tell, this allows some recipients to accept spam that others have rejected - were it not spam they could unsubscribe. I would charge people to accept spam[1] ... but that's just me. > > Hanno [1] Via incrementally-priced mail use (disk + bandwidth) -- this seems to be a better business model than quotas. -- --gh
