On 14/08/2022 23:15, David Bürgin wrote:
To clarify: Backscatter is caused by 'rejecting' mail with a bounce
message, after first accepting it.
This is what was being suggested by some, I think everyone here knows
what backscatter means, and what it is.
--
Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email,
On 14/08/2022 22:37, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 2022-08-14 at 11:39 +1000, Noel Butler wrote: On 14/08/2022
02:38, Martin Gregorie wrote:
3) It would be rather trivial to return spam to sender with a
suitable
WTF, that has been a terrible idea since the 90s, given most spam is
spoofed,
On 8/14/2022 2:55 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022, joe a wrote:
Why waste your own system resources to help a scoundrel? Drop them
and be done.
I personally perfer to TCP tarpit repeat offenders.
+1
-- Jared Hall
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022, joe a wrote:
Why waste your own system resources to help a scoundrel? Drop them and be
done.
I personally perfer to TCP tarpit repeat offenders.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org pgpk
> WTF, that has been a terrible idea since the 90s, given most spam is
> spoofed, the end result of this will be your mail server getting the
> poor reputation as source of backscatter and going into blacklists :)
If you reject, you should reject on their SMTP connection. If you
return a DSN
Martin Gregorie:
> On Sun, 2022-08-14 at 11:39 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> > On 14/08/2022 02:38, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> >
> > > 3) It would be rather trivial to return spam to sender with a
> > > suitable
> >
> > WTF, that has been a terrible idea since the 90s, given most spam is
> >
On Sun, 2022-08-14 at 11:39 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 14/08/2022 02:38, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> > 3) It would be rather trivial to return spam to sender with a
> > suitable
>
> WTF, that has been a terrible idea since the 90s, given most spam is
> spoofed, the end result of this will be
