On Sun, 2022-08-14 at 11:39 +1000, Noel Butler wrote: On 14/08/2022
3) It would be rather trivial to return spam to sender with a
suitable
On 14/08/2022 22:37, Martin Gregorie wrote:
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 :)
On 15.08.22 12:00, Noel Butler wrote:
greed - I don't do that, but almost as long as I've been on this list
there have been advocates of it. As I said, I thought about it, but the
effort of writing a filter to determine what, if anything should be
bounced or rejected, has never seemed worth the effort for such a low
volume mail used as myself.
IMHO if spam passes SPF and/or DKIM, bouncing it should at least result it
in being delivered to the correct sender (or they'll have to fix their SPF
records).
of course, only if you are willing to risk anger of misconfigured senders...
When people advocate for it, it goes to show the only thing they have
ever been responsible for is their own home mail server with accounts
for them and maybe a friend or two on it, never for anything
commercial, you've been around a great many years Martin, so I'm glad
you resist the temptation of the fools.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
My mind is like a steel trap - rusty and illegal in 37 states.
