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

--On 16 October 2009 10:11:50 -0400 "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
> 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.
Right, but I'll bet that's not universal. For example we saw a big drop in 
attempted virus deliveries when we started rejecting them at smtp time. My 
theory is that the spambots went and knocked on someone else's door when 
they realised they weren't delivering to us.



--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/


-------------------------------------------
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