Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Egad, what a lot of spammage

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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                      
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-01-16 17:26:03
Subject: Re: [CORE] Egad, what a lot of spammage
Previous:From: User ScrappyDate: 2008-01-16 16:56:01
Subject: Re: Egad, what a lot of spammage

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group