>To be honest, I am willing to take the risk to block the spam.
I've just checked some of our spamtraps from 05/01/2001 through
today. During that time, we received just 1 spam (going to 4 of our
spamtraps) using the NULL sender. That's well under 1% of all the spam
that we get.
Is it worth breaking the RFCs, losing E-mail, and getting postmasters mad
enough to block you mail, in order to reduce less than 1% of spam?
>The owners of the company I work for are extremely offended by graphic
>"Enlarge your
>penis" e-mails and such.
For that, you may want to use IMail's built-in filters. Or, if you want to
get really tough on spam, you could use our software (the one spam that was
sent from <> failed 2 of the Declude tests).
>And, since it seems, mostly the pornographic
>spammers are the main ones that use the null sender mail blasters, it's
>worth it to avoid the aggravation.
Remember, too, that you are letting these criminals take away your ability
to know that mail you send is not delivered.
I do find the porno spam to be the worst, as there are about 1 *billion*
porno spams a year sent to children. So I can certainly sympathize.
-Scott
Declude: Anti-spam and Anti-virus solutions for IMail. http://www.declude.com
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
