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.
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-01-16 17:26:03|
|Subject: Re: [CORE] Egad, what a lot of spammage |
|Previous:||From: User Scrappy||Date: 2008-01-16 16:56:01|
|Subject: Re: Egad, what a lot of spammage|