on Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:56:15AM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson (dman@dman13.dyndns.org) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 10:27:56AM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote:
>
> | I thought I'd confer with the list, in case I'm missing some
> | rationale for this behaviour . . .
>
> The rationale is that certain large organizations have the resources
> necessary to take legal action against forgers. The presumption,
> then, is that spammers won't forge those domains for fear of legal
> action against them.
While my initial statement may have been overly vague, my suggestion was
that SA itself might be approached by, say, Amazon, Orbitz, etc.,
should it turn out that SA blocks their mail by default. I don't know
what the actual situation is. I do know that in a recent conversation
with Dan Quinlan (after, ahem, pwhysall had picked a fight with him on
#debian), he mumbled something about not being able to filter TMDA
challenge headers for fear of raising hell from TMDA.
Not that I care or anything ;-)
My suggestion in this case: file a wishlist bug for a user note about
the whitelisted domains to appear during install.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Defeat EU Software Patents! http://swpat.ffii.org/
Attachment:
pgp1p2ilrTsDv.pgp
Description: PGP signature