On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:41:48PM -0600, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: > > On Mar 11, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Justin Mason wrote: > > > > >for what it's worth, I would suggest *not* adopting this > >as an anti-spam technique. > > > >Sender-address verification is _bad_ as an anti-spam technique, in my > >opinion. Basically, there's one obvious response for spammers > >looking to > >evade it -- use "real" sender addresses. Where's an easy place to find > >real addresses? On the list of target addresses they're spamming! > > This is a red-herring. They already do that. They have been doing > that for a long time. And it has nothing to do with sender > verification. > > Sender verification works and works well.
I hate sender verification because it forces me (the sender) to jump through hoops just for the privilege of sending email to you. I send a lot of "courtesy" emails to e.g. port maintainers who have problems with their ports, and when I encounter someone with such a system I usually don't bother following up (their port just gets marked broken in the usual way, and they can follow up on it on their own if they want to). Kris _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
