mouss wrote:
> KLaM Postmaster a écrit :
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>>
>> An alternative is to put up a decoy address. One for which email appears
>> to be accepted, but where it is dropped,
>>
>
> I use what I call pseudo-traps here. they are only enabled from time to
> time. when they are enabled, I check the messages, and I use that to
> feed Bayes and other things (IP BL, uri bl, ... etc).
>
That sounds like a good idea, could I trouble you for a few more details
(I saw the funny address item below).
>
>> preferably while tar-pitting the sender.
>>
>
> I am not a fan of tarpitting. the guys at the other end have more
> bandwidth and resources than myself. so I don't fight on their field.
>
Good point, and particularly true in my case.
>
>> I don't know if this is possible, but one can dream.
>> At the moment I think my approach will be to create series of addresses
>> for munging and add them to my blacklist, probably munge01 - 99.
>>
>>
>
> I don't know for you, but I get a lot of attempts to "funny" addresses
> like <47f280be.9000...@netoyen.net>. one of my pseudo-traps is
> /\d{5...@netoyen\.net$/.
>
So far I am not seeing a lot of "funny" addresses, however I am seeing a
fair number for non-existent recipients fortunately the standard checks
handle those very well.
Cheers
JLA
