--On 21 December 2007 11:28:12 -0800 Jeroen van Aart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Eiloart wrote: >> You've missed the point. An OoO reply to a spam message will almost > > I don't think I missed it. > >> If I send you a message, and I get an auto-reply from you, of course >> that's not spam. If I get 1000 autoreplies per day, in response to a >> message that I didn't send, then that's spam. > > Not necessarily. Because each message is sent by a different auto > replier. From your perspective it may feel like spam (ugh ;-) And, who else is qualified to make that judgement? > it can't > be pinpointed to one person who is sending you all this. No, it can't. That's not the point. It's a problem that can't be resolved by one person, but by collective action. > Unless of course you could blame the spammer for the backscatter caused by spam. > Which I guess isn't as easy, seeing it is already hard to at least > legally blame spammer. > >> It can be, if used with caution. You need to have a very good spam >> filter in front of it. > > I found it needs no filter in order to work right. Also I must see the > first case where someone gets 1000s of auto replies due to this. > I've seen several instances over the past few years where I've had to disable user accounts here because of backscatter. This isn't simply a theoretical problem. > Regards, > Jeroen -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex x3148 -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
