Possibly OT, definately humor. rDNS is to policy set by federal law.

Sat Mar 17 14:09:42 UTC 2007

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 01:09:47PM +0000, Peter Corlett wrote:
> > Would you care to expand on why you think sender callback
> > verification is apparently abusive and supports spam?
>
> (a) this is wandering off-topic and (b) this has been covered in great
> depth on Spam-L multiple times, so I'll refer you there for more
> substantive discussion; consider this merely a brief overview whose
> points are not particularly well-ordered, although I'm going to try
> to list them from abstract-to-applied.

You failed to mention that callbacks encourage spammers to use real email
addresses instead of bogus inventions, thus making the backscatter
problem worse. Also, a non-working sender address is not well correlated
with spam: there are lots of legitimate but broken senders, such as mail
servers which reject MAIL FROM:<> and web servers which send MAIL
FROM:<wwwdata at webserver> and don't have an SMTP listener.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
VIKING: WESTERLY 6 TO GALE 8, BECOMING CYCLONIC STORM 10 TO HURRICANE FORCE
12. VERY ROUGH OR HIGH BECOMING VERY HIGH. RAIN THEN WINTRY SHOWERS. MODERATE
OR POOR.