Comments on: What the heck is RFC Compliant? http://www.jeffwoelker.com/2006/11/26/what-the-heck-is-rfc-compliant/ Jeff Woelker's Home for Search Marketing, Social Media, Chicago, and Life on the North Side Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:46:35 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Taylor http://www.jeffwoelker.com/2006/11/26/what-the-heck-is-rfc-compliant/comment-page-1/#comment-11448 Taylor Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:58:36 +0000 http://www.jeffwoelker.com/2006/11/26/what-the-heck-is-rfc-complaint/#comment-11448 Thanks, That was very informative, concise, and enjoyable to read. Thanks,

That was very informative, concise, and enjoyable to read.

]]> By: Itelica http://www.jeffwoelker.com/2006/11/26/what-the-heck-is-rfc-compliant/comment-page-1/#comment-10974 Itelica Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:02:47 +0000 http://www.jeffwoelker.com/2006/11/26/what-the-heck-is-rfc-complaint/#comment-10974 You're completely wrong. The vast majority of Spam sending machines are infected PCs (zombies) which are not RFC compliant. That’s precisely why mail servers are increasingly implementing RFC compliance when receiving mail. It helps reduce Spam. So if you “don’t care” whether you are RFC compliant or not there is good chance your mail will get lumped with all the other non-RFC compliant spam sending machines and rejected. Done and done. You’re completely wrong. The vast majority of Spam sending machines are infected PCs (zombies) which are not RFC compliant. That’s precisely why mail servers are increasingly implementing RFC compliance when receiving mail. It helps reduce Spam. So if you “don’t care” whether you are RFC compliant or not there is good chance your mail will get lumped with all the other non-RFC compliant spam sending machines and rejected.

Done and done.

]]> By: juand http://www.jeffwoelker.com/2006/11/26/what-the-heck-is-rfc-compliant/comment-page-1/#comment-20 juand Fri, 29 Dec 2006 20:49:39 +0000 http://www.jeffwoelker.com/2006/11/26/what-the-heck-is-rfc-complaint/#comment-20 I see your point, in the sense that complying with a standard does not necessarily determines whether something works or not. However, standards were created to guarantee that 2 applications can speak the same language and ensure data gets from side to side properly. On top of that, your points 2 and 3 are completely irrelevant to what the RFC is. I would rather qualify those are e-mail ethics or perhaps laws in some countries. So the fact that scammers are trying to comply with the e-mail standard does not really diminish the importance of standard protocols. In addition, RFC compliance is only a small part of the set of rules most spam filters use; Things like word and sentence structure, network sources and black lists play a much larger role in the process. I see your point, in the sense that complying with a standard does not necessarily determines whether something works or not. However, standards were created to guarantee that 2 applications can speak the same language and ensure data gets from side to side properly.

On top of that, your points 2 and 3 are completely irrelevant to what the RFC is. I would rather qualify those are e-mail ethics or perhaps laws in some countries.

So the fact that scammers are trying to comply with the e-mail standard does not really diminish the importance of standard protocols. In addition, RFC compliance is only a small part of the set of rules most spam filters use; Things like word and sentence structure, network sources and black lists play a much larger role in the process.

]]>