<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>Alessandro Vesely &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from Alessandro Vesely on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2012, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2011-12-27T08:48:00-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> Abuse Reporting: Names vs Numbers (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111227_abuse_reporting_names_vs_numbers</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111227_abuse_reporting_names_vs_numbers</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For email usage, abuse reporting requires cooperation between senders and receivers. That's why RFC 5965 specified a standard format for it. However, Wikipedia lists only 18 feedback providers today. It is often said that the number of legitimate mailbox providers in the world is rather small, possibly some hundreds of thousands, but certainly more than that. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111227_abuse_reporting_names_vs_numbers">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2011-12-27T08:48:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Turn the Table on Content Filtering (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/turn_the_table_on_content_filtering</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/turn_the_table_on_content_filtering</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Why do we run content filters at the recipient's side? <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html">Paul Graham's Plan for Spam</a> introduced them that way. After several years, we can say that plan doesn't work very well. Email has become much less reliable. One way to recover reliability, at least between trusted parties, is to run filters at the sender's side. Let's look at the diagram in more detail... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/turn_the_table_on_content_filtering">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-07-03T11:07:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Hotmail Running Its Own SMTP Variation (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/hotmail_running_own_smtp</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/hotmail_running_own_smtp</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Companies sensible to effective delivery of email to all free email services may have noticed problems with deliveries to Hotmail addresses. Despite the SMTP dialog ending with a successful "250" return code, recipients don't see the message. In their <a href="http://postmaster.msn.com/Guidelines.aspx">Guidelines</a>, MSN require thorough compliance with IETF standards. However, it seems they have their own interpretation about provisions for <em>Delivery Status Notifications</em>, a.k.a. bounces, that servers must send after they have accepted responsibility for delivering the message... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/hotmail_running_own_smtp">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-05-17T09:41:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
