North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: ISP phishing

  • From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
  • Date: Wed Jun 29 08:41:09 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=a89ep5H+LgtCcG3pc122KpSIP3XMX4eTMhdZBRtU31jpv/c+/dCRFQbSCy7iOpqCulQqPrAS2R6CuC3pIRF2wLdI7BZ3ur4bOYEqPQdigEqGU0vJl8TUOezOV1KrmW8nS0ek+Zv6fk85oJcvMagv2Sil/QzsEP7XeuECt5Iyo7Y=
On 29/06/05, william(at)elan.net <[email protected]> wrote:
> Another issue is that are doing the forwarding are the ones that
> are most often least maintained as far as upgrading software and
> enabling new SMTP features. As a result an idea that we will ask
> all forwarders to change and identify themselves in forwarded mail
> can not happen as quickly as path authentication proponents want.

Please name a few names on just who is not enabling "new smtp features" 

And what "smtp features" you'd like enabled.  RFC 2822 / ESMTP hasnt
changed all that much, and then there's SES, which if you call an SMTP
feature, I'd beg to differ on that ..