On 06 Apr 2003 19:12:21 -0500
wayne <wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> wrote:
In <8405(_dot_)1049662670(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu> J C Lawrence
<claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu> writes:
Filtering returning bounces based on Message-ID requires that the MX
keep a DB of known-valid IDs. This is a non-trivial expense.
I believe that the expense is usually trivial compared with the cost
of the time that spam places on the human. There are a lot of people
who seem to be penny wise and pound foolish about spam.
I'm not so sure. In the last year my domain has received a few hundred
thousand (I don't have an accurate count, I know I just went thru 80,000
a few weeks ago, and that there were three other cases in the last year
at roughly a tenth that size and similar behaviour for other
non-existent accounts.
Am I missing something here, is abuse via bounces really common and
growing?
I'm not saying that every technique used to reduce spam is worth
whatever costs may be needed to implement it in any given situation.
However, if you find that many of the techniques are costly because of
how you have designed your mail system, you may be better off
rethinking how your mail system is designed.
Fair dinkum.
ObNote: There are some issues here with Return-Paths which don't point
back to the Sender, but they can be handled.
--
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw(_at_)kanga(_dot_)nu He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg