On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 12:26:53AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:32:22PM +0100, Neil McGovern scribbled: > > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:33:06PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote: > > > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 06:58:42PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw scribbled: > > > > > You send me a mail. My TMDA generates a response which is sent on _my_ > > > > > behalf. I think if you write me, you're expecting a response - how is that > > > > > unsolicited? > > > > > > > > You are missing the point. I was talking about forged from-headers as > > > > are frequently used by spammers and virusses. > > > > > > I have addressed your point in my response, please read it again. > > > > > > > I think what Bas is meaning here is hat you cannot rely on the From > > field to work out who sent you a message. If some spammer decides to use > > my e-mail address as the From: recepient (and they do), I have not sent > > you a mail, but would receive a response from yourself. > > > challenge comes to you generated by somebody's mailer because it _thought_ > it was you who sent it, you can simply discard the challenge message > automatically, causing no harm - since it is certain it wasn't you who sent > the challenged message. The same reasoning can be used: If someone spams you, simply discard the message. > Therefore the argument that the TMDA challenges may be annoying can be > dealt with using filtering. And the filters necessary to discard TMDA > challenges should be much simpler and much more reliable than those > which deal with spam. I hope it's clear what I meant now :) This is, however, putting the onus on the receiver, not the sender, and is equivilent to me sending you 3000 Vi*gra messages, and expecting you to filter them. Warm Regards, Neil -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li B345BDD3
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature