> On 02/13, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > So the only effect of MTX should be confirmation that a machine may send > > mail?
On 13.02.10 14:40, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: > Yes. In such case you should not compare MTX with SPF and or DKIM, instead you should clearly state that MTX is designed to do something very different than SPF and DKIM are trying to do. They both were designed to prevent address forging, which is different and often worse problem than spam itself. You can compare MTX to mtamark and CSA but just please don't say it's better than SPF/DKIM. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Micro$oft random number generator: 0, 0, 0, 4.33e+67, 0, 0, 0...
