Re: [SAtalk] bouncing as an alternative to /dev/null

[Matt Sergeant]

Vivek Khera said the following on 25/11/02 16:10:

"MS" == Martin Schroeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

MS> On 2002-11-24 17:05:47 -0600, Jon Gabrielson wrote:

Anyways, i thought that I would throw up a page
explaining how I bounce spam instead.  I bounce

MS> Automatically bouncing spam is BAD. Look it up on Google.

I don't think it is much worse than refusing to accept it in the first
place.  Auto-dropping spam is, bad, though, since the real FP's won't
ever know what happened.

Due to the nature of the beast, most (commercial) systems push this problem to the recipient though - e.g. give them a list of blocked emails (with sender and subject) for the week, and let them inform an admin (or ask the sender to re-send to an alternate address) if they've lost something important.

It's a sad situation, but the spammers have forced people to take this kind of action.

Matt.



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk