> On Aug 12, 2010, at 10:32 AM, John R Levine wrote:
> > Talking out of my hat here, it is my impression that spam is much more
> > likely to be sent to bogus addresses than legit mail is, so however the
> > spam fraction of your mailstream, the spam fraction of your bounces is
> > likely to be even higher.
> Maybe. But I've seen some *really* effective anti-spam/anti-blowback
> mechanisms catch that junk and throw it on the floor at the "original
> sender's"
> side, while still allowing "legit" bounces to go through just fine (the
> Ironport A/S stuff works really, really, well, the last time I used it).
That's been my experience as well.
> At the end of the day, though, there's an obligation to tell the sender "this
> message with your address on it was undeliverable". It's up to them to filter
> as they see fit. If it's truly as you say, overwhelming, they can just as
> easily drop everything with FROM:<> into the bit-bucket themselves, and lose
> the "5% that matter baby" along with the bathwater.
+1
> But that's THEIR decision to make, and no one else's.
Yep. I'll also point out that since senders can track the messages they send,
they also have the option of correlating NDNs to those messages and throwing
out the ones that don't line up with anything.
Ned
