Spam Control Considered Harmful

Phil Lawlor phil at
Thu Oct 30 01:42:17 UTC 1997

At 04:00 PM 10/29/97 -0800, Derek Andree wrote:
>Phil Lawlor wrote:
>> Exactly.  I guess the question is, should we build more sender verification
>> into sendmail, on both the sending and receiving side?
>  It would seem like a nice feature for Sendmail, but do you think it is
>realistic to assume that everyone would upgrade?  I know of many hosts which
>use "outdated" versions of Sendmail.  Then you would be faced with the
>question of whether to only allow connections from the latest version of
>sendmail (with the sender verification), which would limit it's usefulness.

Right.  Companies that don't have a need to upgrade, won't go through the
expense.  In many areas, caller ID is an optional feature that costs more
to have.  I found it very useful earlier this year when someone posted my
home phone number on the Internet.  If spam is really a big problem for an
organization, than they will go through the pain to solve it.

Phil Lawlor
Voice - 313-730-1130
Fax   - 313-563-6119

More information about the NANOG mailing list