ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Bounces, was Re: [Asrg] Sender pays vs Forgeries

2003-03-21 13:58:15
I'm not actually assuming that we could prevent the spam from appearing.  My 
assumption is that a spam that is encapsulated in a system mail will lose its 
effectiveness.


On Friday 21 March 2003 02:45 pm, Kee Hinckley wrote:
At 1:12 PM -0600 3/21/03, David Walker wrote:
Can you point to something in the RFC that indicates there is a valid use
for null senders other than bounce/error messages?

Null senders are to be used for delivery errors.  You are assuming
that it is possible to encode all possible delivery problems in such
a way that a spammer cannot put their own message in there.  I don't
believe that's true.

However, it would certainly help if MUAs handled such messages
specially.  My experience with the more clueless spectrum of
end-users is that the current bounce system does not work.  They get
mail from this scary address (mailer-daemon) and it contains a bunch
of garbage they don't understand (if they open it).  In general they
delete it without opening it (might be a virus).  They certainly
don't use it to fix their address book.

And anything that makes it harder for spammers to get their message
across is certainly going to help limit the class of people who use a
spammer.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>