On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 18:11 +0100, Jeremy Morton wrote:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> > Hmm, that looks like a stupid auto-response, likely backscatter.
> > Envelope-to: crush...@game-point.net
> >
> > Is that a real, valid user? Do you use catch-all by chance?
>
> I do use catch-all, yes, unfortunately. Years ago I thought it might be
> a good idea to use a different user for each site I signed up to so I
> could see who was spamming me. Turns out now that that was a pretty
> god-awful idea but it's too late to really do much about it because I'll
> surely forget a ton of addresses I've used to sign up for various things
> so I just have to catch all e-mails to my domain and try to sift them.
Ugh.
If there's any chance to correct this, and compile a list of valid,
actually used, customized addresses -- I guess I'd give it a try. You'll
note that getting rid of the catch-all will significantly cut down on
your spam volume.
If you used some strict pattern to generate the per-subscription
address, it might at the very least be worthwhile to write a custom rule
for the Envelope-To or local Received header, punishing all addresses
that clearly don't match the pattern or otherwise valid addresses.
Ah, there we're back to the topic of /custom/ rules just discussed in
the other thread. ;-)
guenther
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
