On 02/12/2014 15:28, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On 12/1/2014 8:47 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > On 02/12/2014 09:07, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 01.12.2014 um 23:46 schrieb > Franck Martin: On Nov 26, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Reindl Harald > <h.rei...@thelounge.net <mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote: Am 26.11.2014 > um 19:45 schrieb Franck Martin: My experience says it is very useful my point in context of that thread is that using previous valid addresses as honeypot is dangerous to stupid - you have no clue in most cases about the context how the RCPT got chosen and i know a lot of people sening once or twice a year some mail to their limited address book congratulations if you in that case (you can't know) block the whole sending server because one of your team memebers left not to mention the number of people who run ancient backups, because they CBF checking to see that their current backups still worked, and find they are mailing a dead address. Harry and I rarely agree, but here we do, it is a dangerous act - the only safe trap address are the ones never ever used before, its only way you have 100% guaranteed zero FP's. This is assuming of course that your instantly blocking everything from a sender that happens to email a honeypot. Most honeypots are not used in such a draconian fashion. But go ahead and be Draconian - I guess the only way you both can justify a "win" on this argument is by assuming people use honeypots in ways that simply are not done in reality. For anyone else, this discussion about honeypots STARTED as a discussion on where to find good Bays feeding sources. Don't bother engaging the two Zealots, you will be wasting your time. <eyeroll> Ted most dont use it this way ? backup your statement with evidence. I await your masses of proof do you even read what you dribble before click send?
