Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things

Re^4: RFC: Email 2.0: Segmail

by tomazos (Deacon)
on Sep 24, 2005 at 23:10 UTC ( #494818=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^3: RFC: Email 2.0: Segmail
in thread RFC: Email 2.0: Segmail

Hmm, I think you're missing how it works.

Addresses are not rotated as a matter of course. An address optionally can be rotated if the correspondant exposes it or starts sending unwanted mail to you. This is an exceptional circumstance, and in this exceptional circumstance Segmail is no better or worse than any current solution.

There is no concept of most recent address. The extra solution for exposing an address to the web and automatically rotating it is tacked on, and not the core of the solution. This extra solution is non-ideal, but still better than current solutions - or put another way - it can fall back to a current solution.

I'm sure DSPAM is very good, but for some, any possibility of a false positive requires the maintenance of a junk mail folder. Some would like a solution where there was no possibility of a false positive, and hence no need to maintain a junk mail folder. Or in the abstract, I don't want a computer deciding which messages I want and which messages I don't.

I have to take a closer look at SPF. I thought it was a statistical solution. Thanks for pointing it out.


Andrew Tomazos  |  |

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://494818]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (4)
As of 2023-10-04 07:24 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found