> 1. E-mail address used must be a part of the company represented. > 2. Runs checks against the domain and MX records. > 3. Not known to send out bounces or notifications to forged senders. > 4. Must have current support agreement with Declude. (With Scott's > permission.) > 5. Must be a Declude JM customer for at least 6 months. (Verified with > Scott's permission.) > 6. Maybe others.
Something tells me that a spammer would gladly buy Declude Lite and sign up with a legit domain if they felt they'd get a giant return on that investment (as they usually do on their other "investments"). The panel idea is fine, but inherently limits the size of the working group...but perhaps that's exactly what's needed now: cell-based spamfighting in which small groups rely on their smarts (and, it must be granted, occasional leaks from other groups) to innovate, understanding that cells will inevitably duplicate a bunch of work but secure in the relative privacy of each cell's ideas over those worked out in huge public fora. Like Pete, not saying not to do it, but I don't see it as significantly more bulletproof (if quantifiable) than WOT. They have different foci, different vulnerabilities. -Sandy ------------------------------------ Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
