On 15 Jan 2003, Jeremy Turner wrote: > 2. As discussed previously on this thread (I believe), it might be a > bad idea to send an email back to a spam source. At best, the address > doesn't exist, creating a returned bounce email and wasting bandwidth. > At worst, the spam source could be a valid user who didn't send the > spam. Sending some sort of return email would not be good.
I keep hearing this said, but I think this line of thinking overlooks the obvious: Bouncing emails tagged by SA isn't to notify the spammers, it's to notify the senders of legitimate email that SA sometimes catches. If you're running spamd in an ISP environment, to send those messages to /dev/null would be irresponsible, and sending them to a different folder would be a support headache, and wouldn't work right for pop3 anyway. I've had plenty of users complain about non-spam being bounced, with the threshold set to 6.6. Typically, it's email that has alot of html and image attachments. James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://3.am ========================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: Thawte.com Understand how to protect your customers personal information by implementing SSL on your Apache Web Server. Click here to get our FREE Thawte Apache Guide: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0029en _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
