procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Spambouncer

1997-10-14 10:24:04
At 08:37 AM 10/14/97 -0700, Bill Moseley wrote:

Has anyone found that bouncing spam does any good at all, other than
telling the spammers that you really exist?

I had a whole policy message written up that would be sent out to spammers
(this includes messages sent to certain troll addresses I used to use on
usenet).  Nothing but a waste of my resources.  Most return paths are
either completely bogus, or end up bouncing pretty damn soon after the
spam, which just brings you more junk to deal with.

Plus, in sending the message, you're assuming that the spammer is going to
give a damn about your mail, which I can assure you, they don't.

Instead, I choose to send messages occasionally to administrators and
upline providers of _domains_ which spew.  "Agreement by action" is one of
the legal standards I like to use (for "should you continue to send mail to
me, that constitutes acceptance of the terms herein").


InterNIC recently (well, July of this year) removed the root files for
.com, .org, and .net (I think) from access at their ftp server.  Too many
spammers were using them for the purpose of generating mailing lists.
Access to the files now requires an assigned FTP account from InterNIC.
When I get a domain-style spam, I immediatley do a whois to get DNS info on
the domain, then grep the root files to obtain a list of domains serviced
by the same DNS.  If they appear spammy (as spam domains tend to), I add
these to a list of domains to filter (egrep) in my primary domain-based
ruleset.  Works for me, though the list is getting big.

Would it be a good idea to have the unsubscribe information placed on the
footer of each message?  (Although it never seems to me to be that hard to
search the web and find the list instructions.)

The same people who can't look back over a week of messages to find the
answer probably aren't going to see it in a footer.  Also, other lists I'm
on DO have a footer (an active URL pointing to a website - which is where
the people subscribed to the list at), and we still end up with people who
can't figure it out.  Dumbing up the list isn't the solution.

Now, a more frequent posting of a FAQ/Resources pointer message, including
(un)subscription/archive/etc info might be a good thing.  I'm not talking
about posting the CONTENTS of the FAQ, but pointers to it.  Might I suggest
that the administrator of the FAQ resource consider posting it to the list
with an increased priority (so that mailers which show it will make the
message stand out that much more).

---
 Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies.  I'll get my copy from the list.

 Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering
 Post Box 2395 / San Rafael, CA  94912-2395

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