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
