Re: [spf-discuss] SPF, DKIM, and NIH

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote:

> > The common criterion for dropping is that by rejecting you are providing
> > a free test machine for spammers to keep trying various alternatives
> > until they get the message through. (Well, transferring SA comments to a
> > multi-line rejection text isn't usually provided.)
> The reason we don't drop is the possibility of false positives. After a
> reject, they should be returned to the sender. Also, I like to think that
> rejection might persuade a spammer to leave our site alone.
>
> Is there a way of determining which spams are likely to be fed back to the
> spammers?
The REJECT itself is the feedback.  The spammer manually or automatically
adjusts the camouflage for the spam until it no longer gets rejected.

-- 
              Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
    Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ 
[http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com