> On 23/03/2011 4:36 PM, Adam Katz wrote: >> That would require an ENORMOUS whitelist and very close attention to its >> upkeep. I do not see this as practical without using a URIBL-style >> mechanism (which would also require high maintenance).
>> Even with such a >> mechanism in place, it unduly penalizes the little guys. even little guys should be able to send correct URLs On 23.03.11 16:42, Lawrence @ Rogers wrote: > Agreed. It's just one of those impractical things and just ain't worth > the effort. you have never received phishing attack of your domain, did you? -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory.
