I agree completely, but a few of my customers are asking about it. I like making my customers happy.
- Michael Cummins From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Darin Cox Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:35 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [MBF]Re: Fighting the good fight! IMO sender verification, aka challenge-response, is an awful solution due to unnecessary traffic and forged spam. With sender verification, every email received, spam or not, is sent a verification email. Perhaps with decent filtering on the front end that issue wouldn’t be a showstopper, though. Forged spam on the other hand results in a lot of sender verification emails being sent to innocent bystanders, both where the sender-verification-“protected” customer is the intended recipient and the forged address receives the sender verification email, and, even worse, where the sender-verification-“protected” customer is the forged sender. An avalanche of bounce message responses, out of office, etc. results. If SPF were adopted universally this latter situation could be handled easily, but unfortunately it is not, and even where it is in place it is often poorly managed. Darin. From: Michael Cummins <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [MBF]Re: Fighting the good fight! My clients are very interested in Sender Verification services. One of them has a Sendio Appliance, an expensive solution. http://www.sendio.com/platforms/appliance/ Anyone know, in this post-declude world, how we could accomplish something like that? Sender sends mail ; sender verification sends them an e-mail, letting them know that they need to reply in order to be on the approved senders list. After that, it’s never blocked again. Would love to hear anyone’s thoughts on the matter. - Michael Cummins
