On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote:
I have had technical support people at bulk mailer providers tell me
that they are not allowed to prune bounces out of lists because
marketing doesn't want to tell the customer that the list just shrank
Well, they *deserve* to be punished, IMO.
Oh please. Not poisoning. Just what we wanted. More bandwidth use.
Every one of those poisoned message gets an attempted delivery.
Every one generates a bounce.
Not necessarily; see Chris Lewis's post earlier.
Every bounce tries to go somewhere else. Have you ever been the
return address on a spam mailing?
Yes. It's not fun. But I do not think poisoning address lists will
make all that much difference.
You want to see your mail server go to its knees?
It's a risk I face whether we poison lists or not.
Poisoning spam lists is just contributing to the spam-as-DoS problem.
I don't think it makes that much difference; people change e-mail
addresses all the time.
And God-forbid your poisoner uses an address that is
fake today, but real tomorrow.
Ah, no; a responsible poisoner only releases poisoned addresses under
a domain he/she owns. You have a point there.
--
David.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg