I find this *really* annoying

[Derek Martin]

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:31:39PM -0400, aluminumsulfate at earthlink.net wrote:
>    From: Derek Martin <invalid at pizzashack.org>
>    Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:14:45 -0400
> 
>    and block that domain.  Do it by having outgoing mail servers
>    cryptographically sign messages with keys registered in DNS, and
>    reject mail if the signatures don't match, or if the domain is known
>    to mass mail spam.  But DON'T do it by blocking everyone in the known
> 
> I'm afraid signing SMTP won't help the spam problem.  

Sure it will, if implemented well.

> Even spammers have signatures.  :) This would just provide
> connection-level security a la IPsec.  

The point is that you can block known spammers based on their domain,
without needlessly penalizing the innocent.

Reject if:

  1) the message is not signed with the domain's published key
  2) the signature matches, but the domain is a known spammer
  3) there is no published key

Otherwise accept.

It would work like current RBLs work, except that you have pretty
solid proof that the sender is or isn't coming from where they say
they are.  It adds documentable accountability.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.