--On October 22, 2016 at 11:27:56 AM -0500 "/dev/rob0" <r...@gmx.co.uk>
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:19:36AM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On October 22, 2016 at 12:16:33 PM +0200 Paul van der Vlis
<p...@vandervlis.nl> wrote:
> Op 22-10-16 om 04:32 schreef Bill Cole:
>> /127\.0\.0\.1/ REJECT you are not me
>
> Thanks, a great idea to have standard in most cases.
I would make one suggestion. I would reject the attempt silently.
No sense in tipping off the spammer to what he needs to do to work
around it. Just use REJECT with no explanation.
The point of rejection messages is in case a human comes up against
it (and even this one, it could happen.) You need to let a novice
postmaster know what s/he has misconfigured.
There is zero evidence over 2 decades that botnet spammers even have
the capability to receive and parse their rejection messages, much
less the interest in doing so.
I wonder how you explain, over the past two decades, how spammers keep
adjusting their tactics to get around the defenses that are put up to foil
them. Precognition?
We've been fighting this battle for, as you say, the past two decades, and
the spammers have been successful at getting around our defenses. I could
list the many things we've done that they've overcome, but why bother?
You're clearly experienced enough to know what they are.
"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who
reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer the truth than he
whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." - Thomas Jefferson
Paul Schmehl (pschm...@tx.rr.com)
Independent Researcher
