From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | User Scrappy <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Egad, what a lot of spammage |
Date: | 2008-01-16 17:02:08 |
Message-ID: | 20080116170208.GD5076@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
User Scrappy wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2008, Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> wrote:
>>> Personally I'd prefer them to be rejected inband so the legitimate
>>> sender learns about the problem and reformulate the message accordingly.
>>
>> The problem with that is that for 1 legitimate message, there's a
>> dozen or more from harvested addresses, the real owners of which won't
>> have a clue what the bounce message is about.
>
> Same applies to virus' ... most are forged emails, so sending an email back
> to the Sender saying 'your computer is infect' would both generate alot of
> traffic, and confuse the hell out of the person that didn't send the
> message in the first place :(
Perhaps we could reject SPF failures? At least people with SPF-enabled
domains would not need to get bogus bounces.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-16 17:26:03 | Re: [CORE] Egad, what a lot of spammage |
Previous Message | User Scrappy | 2008-01-16 16:56:01 | Re: Egad, what a lot of spammage |