--On 10 December 2009 00:39:16 -0500 Seth <sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> wrote:
Steve Atkins <steve(_at_)blighty(_dot_)com> wrote:
If the mail delivery path is "spammer -> forwarder -> isp ->
recipient" then the only useful places to report it are the ISP, the
forwarder and (potentially) the spammer. If, instead, it's
"spammer-pretending-to-be-a-forwarder -> isp -> recipient" then the
only useful place to send it is the ISP, but sending it to the
spammer as well has no real cost.
Problem: if the ISP gets the report and doesn't know that the
forwarder is legitimate, it will damage the reputation of the
forwarder.
Forwarders who aren't taking care about what they forward *should* have a
damaged reputation.
I might have missed a suggestion to not send it to the ISP, only to
the apparent forwarder, when there was something that looked like a
forwarder - if so, don't do that. :)
Not "looked like" but "was verified by the user, by the server sending
a magic message to the user-supplied 'this is my other address' and
seeing it come back from the forwarder".
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg