<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Unauthenticated email</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2008/03/unauthenticated-email/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2008/03/unauthenticated-email/</link>
	<description>Spam, delivery, email and more</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:40:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: George Schlossnagle</title>
		<link>http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2008/03/unauthenticated-email/#comment-1502</link>
		<dc:creator>George Schlossnagle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wordtothewise.com/index.php/2008/03/03/unauthenticated-email/#comment-1502</guid>
		<description>It's not a boolean thing though.  I think the more likely outcome is seeing ISPs tie authentication requirements into their whitelisting processes for large senders.  While you can not block _all_ unauthenticated mail at any point in the future, it's pretty reasonable to move towards requiring authentication for people who send non-trivial amounts of mail into your network.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not a boolean thing though.  I think the more likely outcome is seeing ISPs tie authentication requirements into their whitelisting processes for large senders.  While you can not block _all_ unauthenticated mail at any point in the future, it&#8217;s pretty reasonable to move towards requiring authentication for people who send non-trivial amounts of mail into your network.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
