On 24 Jan 2001, 14:42, A.M. Holm wrote:
> Runbox seems to be a great new service. Quite remarkably I didn't have
> any difficulty with configurations in my initial setup.
>
> However, when I decided to use it as a temporary replacement for an old
> e-mail account that is no longer valid in Netscape's Messenger (which I
> rarely use) I found that I had to "POP" before send. This may have been
> because I neglected to alter the outgoing e-mail address in Messenger -
> **not** the "Reply To:" address (you know the one - 'if different from
> your e-mail address') but the actual e-mail address that appears in the
> header, viz. -
>
> Received: from pluto.runbox.com [193.71.199.39] by mail1.wohlbier.ch
> with ESMTP (SMTPD32-6.05) id A7163A801A4; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:39:02
> +0100 Received: from [207.179.171.101] (helo=ibm.net) by
> pluto.runbox.com with esmtp (Exim 3.14 #1) id 14LSsP-0005lT-00 for
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:34:30 +0100 Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:35:31 -0400 From:
> AM Holm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
>
> I find this troubling since it would seem to leave the door wide open to
> spammers.
>
> Can anyone present an alternative deduction?
No, but I did not set any kind of authentication for my SMTP. Did
anyone else find they had to authenticate their smtp one way or the
other for runbox.com?
When a service does require authentication for smtp, then yes that does
tend to curb spamming. But authentication for us is like an x-ray
baggage check at an airport. You may feel safe, but still it is an
inconvenience, nonetheless.
Most steps that services take to combat spammers end up hurting the
innocent more than the spammer.
Alan
