On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 05:25:24PM -0400, Bojan Baros wrote: > > Bojan wrote: > >> > >> 0.5 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD 'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received' > >> headers > >> 0.8 PRIORITY_NO_NAME Message has priority setting, but no > >> X-Mailer > >> 4.3 CONFIRMED_FORGED Received headers are forged > >> > > > > Ahh the irony. You forge your From address and that's exactly the kind > > of message Yahoo! propose to drop. > > > > Lol, yeah. My side project, creating email my own way. > > BTW, I am not saying that this is the future, that it's good, yada yada > yada, I just wanted other people's opinions. And obviously, this exposes > a flaw with this approach. If I want to use a qualified email address, do > I have to send it through that specific server? Or through my own? > > And about the idea that Bill Gates floated out there, about solving a > computer puzzle that would require 10 seconds or so of CPU time to send > the email... Spammers already use distributed computing (some computers > are doing it willingly, others not quite so) to send out spam. This would > not create a huge problem if you have plenty of CPU cycles to spare. Gates' idea is being put to use every day on this very mailing list. Notice those GnuPG signatures lots of us seem to use? Try assigning higher "non-spam" scores to GnuPG signed messages. I'm not suggesting Grandma and everyone else use crypto, but just pointing out there is no need for a fancy vendor solution. It already exists.
Attachment:
pgpmybvTJWpas.pgp
Description: PGP signature