On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 16:08:36 +0000 RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 12:44:37 +0100 > Bernd Petrovitsch <be...@petrovitsch.priv.at> wrote: > > > > C/R is only means to make it move your own effort over to others. > > > > The really "interesting" case is if both sides choose to require C/R > > to get the first mail delivered. > > Which should be a clear sign to everyone that C/R is basically a bad > > idea. > > That's only a problem in very naive C/R systems. It can be solved by > using a time-limited disposable address in the envelope "mail from". > The recipient's challenge goes to the disposable address which > bypasses the senders own C/R system. Some mailservers already do this > because it eliminates almost all backscatter while allowing remotely > generated legitimate DSNs to pass. > > Infuriating advocates of C/R pretty much have an answer for that should be "Infuriatingly" > everything. If a benign dictator imposed a well thought-out scheme on > everyone, it would probably work very well. > > At the moment though spam isn't that much of a problem, and C/R is > more trouble than it's worth.
