North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Mail with no purpose?
>> Michel Py wrote: >> In other words: if you're already to the point where >> you are using a text-mode mail client or disabling >> HTML and/or other stuff in a GUI client, you are no >> loss to the spammer if your email does not confirm >> as valid (because you would not even read it nor buy >> any of their crud in the first place). > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > So what you're saying is that these validation schemes > are a good thing? I was not thinking in terms of being good or not, as these schemes exist and will likely continue whether we like it or not. Trying to answer the question anyway: It is clear that there is room for improvement in making these address validation schemes less efficient. I will let the reader make their own opinion whether this would be a good thing or not. It would be a good thing in the sense that it would reduce the spammer's ability to focus spam on known existing email addresses. It would be a bad thing in the sense that in order to reach the same number of valid targets the spammer would then send a lot more email, knowing that large numbers are invalid. The lesser of two evils: let's say that potentially we could force spammers to send 100 times more emails for the same result. Some will. Are we ready to bounce 99% of email traffic? Michel. |