On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:09:47PM +0000, Peter Corlett wrote: > > Would you care to expand on why you think sender callback > > verification is apparently abusive and supports spam? > > (a) this is wandering off-topic and (b) this has been covered in great > depth on Spam-L multiple times, so I'll refer you there for more > substantive discussion; consider this merely a brief overview whose > points are not particularly well-ordered, although I'm going to try > to list them from abstract-to-applied.
You failed to mention that callbacks encourage spammers to use real email addresses instead of bogus inventions, thus making the backscatter problem worse. Also, a non-working sender address is not well correlated with spam: there are lots of legitimate but broken senders, such as mail servers which reject MAIL FROM:<> and web servers which send MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and don't have an SMTP listener. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ VIKING: WESTERLY 6 TO GALE 8, BECOMING CYCLONIC STORM 10 TO HURRICANE FORCE 12. VERY ROUGH OR HIGH BECOMING VERY HIGH. RAIN THEN WINTRY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR POOR.
