On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 03:15:09PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 10:37:08PM +1100, Matthew Palmer said > > On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 12:11:07PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > > It gives you traceability and it can be used to prevent joe-jobs. > > > It's not a silver bullet solution against spam. > > > > And yet it's being touted as one. I predict that the effect of this system > > on spam levels will be about as detectable on a spam vs time graph as a fart > > in a hurricane. > > I'm not sure why it's being touted as one; SPF has the same issue. > Encouraging adoption of something by misrepresenting its use seems > rather pointless in the end. That's a question you'll have to ask of Yahoo and the SPF people. My guess is that the pushers of these schemes want their thing adopted for whatever reason (corporate greed, personal gratification, whatever), but they know that random people don't care enough about e-mail forgery to really take it up. However, most everyone online seems to be pretty pissed off about spam, so saying "this stops spam" will get people interested in the scheme, and they're hoping that people kinda forget that the system was supposed to stop spam when people work out, definitively, that it doesn't actually do squat to stop spam. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature