Re: [exim] Heads up?

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Marilyn Davis wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Fred Viles wrote:
>

> > On 23 Mar 2005 at 11:51, Marilyn Davis wrote about
> >     "Re: [exim] Heads up?":

> >
> > | On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Mike Wiebeld wrote:
> > |
> > | > Marilyn,
> > | > :)
> > | > Please don't take this the wrong way, I just found it humorous.
> > | >
> > | > http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
> > |
> > | Cute.
> > |... (but...)
> >

> > dont-get-no-respect-6
> >      Nothing in this list applies to your solution to the spam
> >      problem except some entries that are neither ironic nor silly.  

> >
> > | The ones where you have to go to the web and read a hard-to-OCR font
> > | aren't vulnerable to robot attack -- if done right.
> >
> > They are vulnerable to the problem that a significant fraction of
> > legitimate senders won't be willing to jump through the hoop. Duh,
> > as you would say.

This wouldn't stop me from using it. With my lousy content filtering,
which I'm too lazy to upgrade, I've had a few phone calls and
face-to-face encounters with people who were hurt and frustrated
because my system (as politely as I could) said they were suspected
spam.

And many broken systems simply eat suspected spam and no one knows.

I taught a class in Python at a defense industry company. As always,
I ran an email list for the class and sent the materials. 2 out of
the 8 material sets were quietly eaten by their spam-absorber. But,
that's their bug, but my frustration, and my class'.


> > And your FUSSP still needs a *viable* solution to the spoofed
> > address/collateral spam problem. SPF is not it. > > No? I guess
> > I don't understand SPF then. Can you please explain?

Is encryption a solution for spoofing?

BTW, it's not *my* FUSSP. I'm just trying to find the baby in the
bathwater.

When people get so angry, I get suspicious that there is one.

Marilyn


>
> Marilyn
>
> >
> > - Fred
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

--