On 02/13, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > So the only effect of MTX should be confirmation that a machine may send > mail?
Yes. > So why the complicated check for DNS record combining DNS name and IP? > Why not simply requesting that machine has a "mail" or "smtp" in its DNS > name? I answered that recently. (I need to state that such a method would require a full circle DNS check. Not a problem) 1) I am not comfortable requiring people to modify existing host names to participate. 2) Probably more importantly, I am concerned about the possibility of spammers tricking DNS maintainers into giving them such host names. These two problems are handled by http://tools.ietf.org/draft/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-04.txt which was recently mentioned by Justin Mason. The advantage MTX has over mtamark, which I believe is important, is that MTX ties the spam to a domain name, which is tied to a registrar, which can be subpoenaed for the identity of the spammer. mtamark leaves the spam still only tied to the transmitting IP, which I believe is less convenient to track. Especially given IP hijacking via BGP. Nasty. -- "Of course there's strength in numbers. But there's strength in sharp weaponry too. Ironically, this lead to what we call 'civilization'." - spore http://www.ChaosReigns.com
