On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, J.Francois wrote:

> At least the encryption part is already taken care of.
> see:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt
>

	Yay, RFC! Thanks for pointing this out.

> I block more spam by rejecting bad HELO and rejecting
> on non-existant domains on the RHS of email addresses than
> from all the RBL lists I use.
>
> I am *still* amazed at the sheer number of whacked configurations
> for mail servers I see based on rejects in my logs.

	The Internet as modified Barnum's law. It's now 'A fool builds a
mail server every minute.'

> Anonymous email is still available.

	Don't accept mail from hotmail.com. =) I know so few people with
hotmail accounts, if they actually complain, I'd offer to hook them up
with a decent shell account somewhere.

> The Remailer Ops ( which I was one of back in the day ) have tools
> in place to try to prevent spam and other abuses. Sooner or
> later spammers will figure out how to circumvent them but it hasn't happened
> yet.

	Again, I think a change to a stringent policy and a 'I don't trust
you' attitude toward mail servers is pretty much unstoppable.

	George's comment about legit users firing up spam tools got me
thinking earlier. Any ISP type floating about the list? How do existing
policies conflict with using firewall rules/acl's that force users to only
use local mail servers? What about transparent redirects?

- billn