2009/7/22 Morgan Aldridge <morgant@makkintosshu.com>:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Bob Carls Dudney<kosmicdollop@saber.net> wrote:
>> But I suppose in terms of internet traffic and the short length of
>> vast majority of spam, it wouldn't really save much to block receipt
>> if the server is always returning a message to the sender saying
>> invalid address. Once all the trouble of connecting servers happens I
>> suppose a few K more packets sent along the path isn't significant in
>> the big scheme. (Anyway, the header's usually much bigger than the
>> spam message (whenever I've looked).)
>
> Yes, it is much easier to do that and while it does use some bandwidth
> to try to reject each of those messages, it's better than letting them
> go into a black hole, esp. if you have to then waste processing power
> running them through spam & virus filters.
But most spam is sent from forged addresses. Don't respond to it, not
even with a rejection notice when the recipient doesn't exist. Please.
If you've ever had a spammer use your mail address as a sending
address, you'll know why.
.tsooJ
====================================================================
The NewtonTalk Mailing List - http://www.newtontalk.net/
The Official Newton FAQ - http://www.splorp.com/newton/faq/
The Newton Glossary - http://www.splorp.com/newton/glossary/
WikiWikiNewt - http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
====================================================================
Received on Wed Jul 22 08:37:47 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 22 2009 - 11:30:01 EDT