Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:10190
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <02c001c4466f$6aa3cb50$0200a8c0@rusko>
To: <ilia@prohost.org>, <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <024e01c4464c$f8dbf500$0200a8c0@rusko> <200405301333.34754.ilia@prohost.org>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 13:56:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [patch] abuse-proof zif_mail()
From: paul@rusko.us ("Paul G")


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ilia Alshanetsky" <ilia@prohost.org>
To: <internals@lists.php.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [patch] abuse-proof zif_mail()


> Strong -1.
>
> Ilia

ilia,

out of curiosity, what are the arguments against the idea and the
implementation respectively? you seem to be with a hosting company - how do
you handle the situation i described? not trying to be defensive, i am
genuinely interested in everyone's thoughts on this.

my thoughts on this are: *if* we agree that at least in certain situations
being able to track the source of abuse is a Good Idea, then we agree that
having a feature (for lack of a better word) that provides a way to identify
the source is a Good Idea as well. it need not be enabled by default, mind
you. however, i would venture a guess that sysadmins running *amp boxes with
untrusted users (a large portion of *amp boxes) would find this useful. if
there is something wrong with the way i've done it, which is entirely and
even likely possible, then there is a good chance that there is also a
better way of doing it. the worth of the idea and the implementation are
obviously decoupled and i am open to education through cluebat as it may
pertain to reworking the patch to be correct, as opposed to just working.

thoughts?

paul