All clear. Thanks a lot!
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:46:30PM -0600, s. keeling wrote: > Incoming from David Jardine: > > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 04:43:43PM -0600, s. keeling wrote: > > > Incoming from David Jardine: > > > > > > > > What worries me is the spam that is sent out under my name. Just > > > > > > I get bounces from clueless mail admins all the time. If they'd spend > > > two seconds scanning the original's Received: headers, they'd know I > > > had nothing to do with it. Blast it back to those fools and tell them > > > > The messages I've been receiving (was receiving - I haven't had any > > today - perhaps they're using your address now) were polite > > (automated, I imagine) statements of inabilty to deliver the message > > Those are the ones I was talking about. "no such user" or "account > not found" or some such. > > > - no accusations of spamming. There must be masses of email flying > > It was me assuming it was a spammer with an old address list. An > email sent to fifty bad email addresses at AOHell using my From: > doesn't sound like a legitimate, well maintained, opt-in mailing list. > It sounds like a spammer forging my From: address. > > > around all the time with mis-typed addresses; isn't the appropriate > > response to return it to the apparent sender? That's a real question, > > not a rhetorical one. > > Once, it was. Now, 65% - 80% of network traffic is spam or malware. > Now, it's smarter to assume that if you sent Joe an email and don't > hear back within a couple of days, either Joe's on holidays or his > spam filter is set too tight, so you should send him another one or > call him. Sending something that instead looks (to your average > Windows user) like a MTA error message is a waste of time, effort, > and bandwidth. > > > The worry I had was about the reject messages I didn't get. If the > > Peoria Inter-Denominational College of Neo-Tibetan Goldfish Juggling > > received thirty of my dollops of spam, who else was getting them and > > was I being put on blacklists by, well, "clueless mail admins" and > > "fools" with "idiotic mail-bots"? > > The clueless might report you, but those who actually manage said > lists aren't that dumb. There needs to be some pretty damning > evidence that's provably from you to hurt you. Alternatively, your > ISP could be so clueless as to let the situation get out of hand. > Generally, if your ISP is up front and responsible about killing > abuser's accounts from his IPs, he won't have any problem, and > consequently neither will you for using his services. > > > I would gladly help to educate the people I do get reject messages > > from, but what exactly do I tell them? > > Spamcop.net! When you report spam, they analyze it to death, and mail > you back a URL you can go to to see the result. That URL could be > mailed to them if they need convincing. btw, Spamcop reporter IDs are > free. > > > > Spammers are forging From: addresses, have been for at least a year, > > > > This message comes to you with a forged From: address courtesy of the > > rewrite rules in /etc/exim/exim.conf. Excuse me, there was a knock > > on the door. Must be Spamcop... > > Munging email addresses isn't illegal. It's just counter-productive. > How are you going to kill them if they can't find you?!? :-) > > > -- > Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. > (*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Please don't Cc: me. > - - > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- David Jardine "Running Debian GNU/Linux and loving every minute of it." -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
