Hi, I am using KMail. When I get junk mail I usually just bounce it and never hear back. But today when I bounced a "give me your money" email it just sat in the outbox and blocked the queue. Nothing would go past it. It was from azeezabdul2005@netscape.net When I trashed it the queue moved. Any ideas? Regards, Colin
On Saturday 14 May 2005 15:09, Colin Carter wrote:
Hi, I am using KMail. When I get junk mail I usually just bounce it and never hear back. But today when I bounced a "give me your money" email it just sat in the outbox and blocked the queue. Nothing would go past it. It was from azeezabdul2005@netscape.net When I trashed it the queue moved. Any ideas?
Bogus Return-Path, most likely. Don't bounce. It's not worth it, because the spammers won't care (if they did they wouldn't keep trying to send email to message ID strings that happen to look like email addresses), all you're doing is doubling the wasted bandwidth from the spam
On Saturday 14 May 2005 14:09 pm, Colin Carter wrote:
Hi, I am using KMail. When I get junk mail I usually just bounce it and never hear back.
This is bad practice - it tells the spammers that there is a receiving server acting on the mail which means they can send more spam to that domain. Also, it results in a doubling of junk email traffic on the addresses - as you should be able to imagine, the cumulative effect of this if everyone used this approach would be crippling. Lastly, the bounce address is often not the real source so at best the bounce just gets "lost in the ether" and at worst some innocent user is receiving your bounce as a spam (and then bouncing it themselves, maybe...)
But today when I bounced a "give me your money" email it just sat in the outbox and blocked the queue. Nothing would go past it. It was from azeezabdul2005@netscape.net When I trashed it the queue moved. Any ideas?
The original mail probably had badly formed headers so there was no valid place to send the bounce to...
Regards, Colin
-- "I see your Schwartz is as big as mine" -Dark Helmet
On Saturday 14 May 2005 23:20, Dylan wrote:
On Saturday 14 May 2005 14:09 pm, Colin Carter wrote:
Hi, I am using KMail. When I get junk mail I usually just bounce it and never hear back.
This is bad practice - it tells the spammers that there is a receiving server acting on the mail which means they can send more spam to that
Thanks Anders and Dylan. Silly me - KMail told me that a return message would be sent saying that there was no such address. Sometimes I feel like beating the sh.. out of these guys. Regards, Colin
The Sunday 2005-05-15 at 00:02 +1000, Colin Carter wrote:
This is bad practice - it tells the spammers that there is a receiving server acting on the mail which means they can send more spam to that
Thanks Anders and Dylan. Silly me - KMail told me that a return message would be sent saying that there was no such address. Sometimes I feel like beating the sh.. out of these guys.
I heard of that, and I wondered why they did it. Bouncing spam "might" make sense at the server level. The smtp server rejects an email, and the previous server (not yours) in the chain has to generate a bounce message bak - which might not work if the return address is false, as in your case. I personally think it is more sensible to silently dump them; but maybe kmail guys think otherwise and can give pros for bouncing :-? -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:00:01 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
The Sunday 2005-05-15 at 00:02 +1000, Colin Carter wrote:
This is bad practice - it tells the spammers that there is a receiving server acting on the mail which means they can send more spam to that
Thanks Anders and Dylan. Silly me - KMail told me that a return message would be sent saying that there was no such address. Sometimes I feel like beating the sh.. out of these guys.
I heard of that, and I wondered why they did it.
Bouncing spam "might" make sense at the server level. The smtp server rejects an email, and the previous server (not yours) in the chain has to generate a bounce message bak - which might not work if the return address is false, as in your case.
I personally think it is more sensible to silently dump them; but maybe kmail guys think otherwise and can give pros for bouncing :-?
-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
I'm not a kmail guy, but I can tell you why my SA is set to bounce instead of drop - on the off chance a real email is caught by my filters, I want the sender to know I didn't see their message, and why. Mike- -- Mornings: Evolution in action. Only the grumpy will survive. -- Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces, try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments.
The Saturday 2005-05-14 at 17:53 -0400, Michael W Cocke wrote:
I'm not a kmail guy, but I can tell you why my SA is set to bounce instead of drop - on the off chance a real email is caught by my filters, I want the sender to know I didn't see their message, and why.
Mine doesn't drop neither bounces: simply marks and later move to another box, which I check now and then (titles only). False positives are around one or two a year, at most. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
participants (5)
-
Anders Johansson -
Carlos E. R. -
Colin Carter -
Dylan -
Michael W Cocke