On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
-- william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since it appears NANOG continues to be used for mail-related discussions
and a some of what goes here is based on not understanding technologies
and issues involved, I'll make a link to a
On 06/13/05, william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In part 5, I also go through why none of the proposals are really
anti-spam and promotion of the methods as such is misleading.
No matter how the authors may promote their methods, most
people don't perceive that
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 06/13/05, william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In part 5, I also go through why none of the proposals are really
anti-spam and promotion of the methods as such is misleading.
No matter how the authors may promote their methods, most
On 06/13/05, william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No matter how the authors may promote their methods, most
people don't perceive that there's any great separation between
anti-spam and anti-forgery techniques. As far as they're
concerned, all e-mail threats are
