At 3:06 PM -0500 3/31/00, Dave Sill wrote: >Do the spammers: > > 1) throw up their hands and admit defeat, or > 2) start using valid (but wrong) domains in their envelope return > paths, thereby defeating your rejection and escalating the arms > race? > >Note that many are already doing (2), of course. I've had several emails using my @pobox.com address as the MAIL FROM bounced because spammers use phony @pobox.com addresses. I've never seen a single spam that originated on pobox's servers. Most of the spam I see comes from China or relay raped machines outside the US. And, of course, I've seen numerous pieces of spam with phony @yahoo.com, @hotmail.com, @aol.com, etc. > >-Dave -- -- Paul J. Schinder NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Code 693 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam options? Dave Sill
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam options? Jon Rust
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam options? Charles Cazabon
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam option... Patrick Bihan-Faou
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam op... Len Budney
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-sp... Patrick Bihan-Faou
- Re: Poor documentation of ant... Len Budney
- Re: Poor documentation of ant... richard
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam options? Dave Sill
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam option... Jon Rust
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam option... Paul Schinder
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam op... Patrick Bihan-Faou
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-sp... David Dyer-Bennet
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-sp... Paul Schinder
- Re: Poor documentation of ant... Patrick Bihan-Faou
- Re: Poor documentation of ant... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Poor documentation of ant... Patrick Bihan-Faou
- Re: Poor documentation of ant... Peter van Dijk
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam options? Jon Rust
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam options? Scott D. Yelich
- Re: Poor documentation of anti-spam options? jeff
