Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
I've read the "sender callouts" page and I don't see any evidence that it
mentions the SAV problem.
On 07.08.09 15:33, Mike Cardwell wrote:
I went to the front page, and then clicked "Sender Callouts" ... The
very first line says:
"Sendercallouts (Sender Verify / SAV) - Why it is abusive"
The second line says:
"This is for all persons who think SENDER CALLOUTS are viable."
The third line says:
"We will explain why we consider sender callouts abusive."
The rest of the page describes in detail the problems with SAV.
Yet you can't see that it even mentions the SAV problem?
the title (not <title>) is the only place it mentions SAV. all the rest
mentions "sender callouts" which is imho not clear.
"Sendercallouts (Sender Verify / SAV) - Why it is abusive" says that in
the context of the page, the 3 names are being used in an
interchangeable manner.
If it said "Why they are abusive" instead of "Why it is abusive" you
might be forgiven for thinking that it was providing a list of three
separate things.
Especially the part that mentions bidirectional verify, expecting that the
provided rcpt will be used for SAV sender (many SAV implementations use mail
from:<>)
I think it mentions the mailing back, not the SAV,
and I'm interested if the backscatterer.org blacklists IPs with SAV or only
those that send real mails...
It does both. The minimal amount of text on the front page couldn't be
clearer about that ...
I think it could
I think this must be a language barrier thing. "Every IP which
backscatters or does sender callouts" is a quite clear statement that
the list contains two things:
1.) IPs which originate backscatter
2.) IPs which perform sender callouts
--
Mike Cardwell - IT Consultant and LAMP developer
Cardwell IT Ltd. (UK Reg'd Company #06920226) http://cardwellit.com/
