<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Re: Bravo Yahoo! in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r8766351</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:57:35 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:57:35 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Re: Bravo Yahoo!</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8766351</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/170742"><b>Jim Gurd</b></A> :  <BLOCKQUOTE><SMALL>said by  GameCube Boy <A HREF="/useremail/u/912817"><IMG SRC="http://i.dslr.net/bb/profile.gif" ALT="See Profile" BORDER=0 WIDTH=16 HEIGHT=11></A>:</SMALL><HR>When spammers themselves were asked what would stifle their work their answer was "authentication."<br><br>Bravo Yahoo!<br> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br><br>I agree.  Authentication is the only way to make a real dent in the spam problem.  If you eliminate address spoofing then you force spammers into the open and they are easier to stop.  Any message which can't be properly authenticated would be black-holed.<br><br>The hardest part of this will be getting a critical mass of ISP's to implement the system.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8766351</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:49:05 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Bravo Yahoo!</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8766174</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/912817"><b>GameCube Boy</b></A> : When spammers themselves were asked what would stifle their work their answer was "authentication."<br><br>Bravo Yahoo!]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8766174</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:22:27 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
