Timothy Collett wrote:
David Legg wrote:
I think this would be much more effective than SPF which relies on
everybody correctly implementing it for it to be effective.
However, by your description, VERP still relies on your own mail
server to process the mail and discard it--which means you'll still be
getting flooded with emails you don't want.
True... I can see the beauty of cutting spam out of the picture as early
as possible. But of course even SPF looks as if it will generate a lot
of DNS lookups (and therefore lots of net traffic) as it attempts to
determine the legitimacy of the email. I don't have hard figures but
experience shows the average size of spam messages appears to be getting
smaller and smaller. Most of the stuff I get is one line long as the
spammers desperately try to shed any context which might identify the
message as spam. Indeed some seem so desperate they even squeeze out
the spaces between words!
If this trend continues I can't believe that all the extra DNS packets
flying about in an attempt to validate the email add up to any less than
the spam itself.
SPF may not be implemented by everyone, but those mail servers that
*do* implement it, if I understand correctly, should avoid sending
such mails on to your server in the first place.
...Which, of course, leads to the conclusion that the most effective
solution would be a combination of both ;-)
I agree ;-)
David Legg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
