From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 08:33:37AM -0400, Gene Grimm wrote:
> [...]
> > Alot of people will resist this if it means replacing every mail server
> > on the Internet, or even just the mail software on every Internet mail
> > server. This has to be a revision compatible
Hello!
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 08:33:37AM -0400, Gene Grimm wrote:
[...]
> Alot of people will resist this if it means replacing every mail server
> on the Internet, or even just the mail software on every Internet mail
> server. This has to be a revision compatible with the existing SMTP
> proto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> There are several projects which discuss a substitution of traditional
> Email with a more modern infrastructure, and I think it is time to
> spent effort on pushing this forward and stop loosing time with
> preventing what's inevitable - abuse of SMTP.
>
> Personall
Hello!
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 10:34:09AM +1000, Glenn Hocking wrote:
> Hi again
>
> Really the comparison between rbl lists is academic. It is good that
> there are many different and evolving systems to block spam accordingly
> with different success rates.
>
> However from a 'email service
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 10:34:09AM +1000, Glenn Hocking wrote:
> Hi again
>
> However from a 'email service provider' point of view (as per my
> original email) I do not wish to block ANY legitimate email. The more
> spam that is bounced the better BUT my requirement is purely 'If it
> blocks
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 10:34:09AM +1000, Glenn Hocking wrote:
> However from a 'email service provider' point of view (as per my
> original email) I do not wish to block ANY legitimate email. The more
> spam that is bounced the better BUT my requirement is purely 'If it
> blocks legitimate email,
6 matches
Mail list logo
