Friday, January 24, 2003, 3:00:31 PM, you wrote:
G> ON Friday, January 24, 2003, 4:17:49 PM, you wrote:
MC>> I run Linux at home, and Kmail comes with a nice, official-looking
MC>> Bounce feature...looking at that, I don't see why one couldn't
MC>> create a special Reply rule with TB! where
ON Friday, January 24, 2003, 4:17:49 PM, you wrote:
MC> I run Linux at home, and Kmail comes with a nice, official-looking
MC> Bounce feature...looking at that, I don't see why one couldn't
MC> create a special Reply rule with TB! whereas if an offending email
MC> arrives, a "bounce" messag
Hi Matt,
on Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:04:22 -0500GMT (24.01.03, 17:04 +0100GMT here),
you wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :
MC>One more thing: if you like I could send you a "bounced" message
MC>from KMail when I get home this weekend, so you can see what it
MC>looks like
Hey Roelof,
My MUA believes 'The Bat! (v1.62 Christmas Edition) Personal' was used
to write [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Friday, January 24, 2003 at 10:51:40 AM.
RO> Depending on the knowledge of your unwanted correspondent, it
RO> might be a nice touch to put his own address in th
Friday, January 24, 2003, 10:17:49 AM, I wrote:
MC> Hello ~John,
MC> I run Linux at home, and Kmail comes with a nice, official-looking
MC> Bounce feature...looking at that, I don't see why one couldn't
MC> create a special Reply rule with TB! whereas if an offending email
MC> arrives, a
Hallo ~John,
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:58:32 -0600GMT (24-1-03, 15:58 +0100GMT, where
I live), you wrote:
> For example, if there is a certain person that I no longer wish to
> receive mail from, can I bounce all of his messages to me?
Yep. Create a filter for his messages with the action "Send Aut
Hi Batpersons,
On or about, Friday, January 24, 2003, 2:58:32 PM, we have reason to believe that
~John wrote:
~> I simply want to know if it is possible to "fake" a bounced e-mail from
~> theBat! ?
Why not create an autoreply template which shows sender as
[EMAIL PROTECTED], and a filter to us
Friday, January 24, 2003, 9:58:32 AM, you wrote:
~> I have searched the archives and all I can find are arguments over
~> "should you bounce" or "should you not bounce", "does it help" or
~> "not"
~> I simply want to know if it is possible to "fake" a bounced e-mail from
~> theBat! ?
~> I do not
I have searched the archives and all I can find are arguments over
"should you bounce" or "should you not bounce", "does it help" or
"not"
I simply want to know if it is possible to "fake" a bounced e-mail from
theBat! ?
I do not want to use it as a Spam fighting tool, so I could care less
about th
Hello Mean,
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:44:44 +0530 GMT (04/12/02, 22:14 +0700 GMT),
Mean Drake wrote:
>> Definitely yes! RFCs not only recommend, but require postmaster@ being
>> a active and read address per domain.
>>
> What about [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFC 2142 is the one you want to check out.
--
C
Dear Simon,
On 17:48 04.12.2002, you [Simon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])]
wrote...
> Fair enough. So basically you are saying that even though 'the bounce' may
> work on occasion with Mailwasher it is no more than a gimmick as it would be
> obvious to anyone that it was not a genuine bounced message be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
'Lo Johannes,
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:35:41 +0100 your time, you said:
JP> Plus, every message that *YOU* generate and send will be different from
JP> a real bounce, both generated at receive time by a negative recipient
JP> verify, or by your
Dear Mean,
On 16:14 04.12.2002, you [Mean Drake ([EMAIL PROTECTED])] wrote...
> What about [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Basically, since your mail client tries to imitate a bounce but does
not supply a NULL <> sender to the mail server, it does change nothing
but generates a whole bunch more of load onto M
Dear Simon,
On 15:58 04.12.2002, you [Simon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])]
wrote...
> Huh? What are you on about exactly?
To speak on a bit more ironical terms, the fact that my mail server
accepts mails from you is a priviledge, not a right. Please don't
think it is targeted at you, you're just an exa
- Original Message -
From: "Simon"
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Bounce Mail
>
> Perhaps the people tugging at their locks over the idea of
Mailwasher
> bouncing messages should grab a copy, being as it is free, and
investigat
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Palmreuther"
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Bounce Mail
> Hello Mean,
>
> On Wednesday, December 4, 2002 at 4:56:49 AM you [MD] wrote (at least
> in part):
>
First a small thanks for an exhaustive
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
'Lo Johannes,
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:21:02 +0100 your time, you said:
JP> I think it is a good time to remember everyone that eMail is a
JP> *priviledge*, not a right. Mind you, there are still providers that do
JP> not offer you a mailbox
Dear Simon,
On 14:35 04.12.2002, you [Simon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])]
wrote...
> at all significant, and if a postmaster is going to whine about the
> occassional bounced message they've he or she has spend far too much time
> tracing back to a local Mailwasher user then well, what can
Dear Peter,
On 11:07 04.12.2002, you [Peter Palmreuther
([EMAIL PROTECTED])] wrote...
> But there the problem is located: ISP can't direct the double bounces
> to the originator and they can't fire all customers. So the result is:
They can fine the customers for sending out mails with a forged f
Dear Mean,
On 04:46 04.12.2002, you [Mean Drake ([EMAIL PROTECTED])] wrote...
> You misunderstand. The bounced mail seems to be formatted differently
> from other replies. It is made to look as if it came from
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and unless one really analyses the header...well
> it works. I know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
'Lo Peter,
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:07:00 +0100 your time, you said:
PP> ... this "faking bounces" ain't "fighting spam" even in the slightest
PP> way. It has nothing in common with any successful "spam fighting
PP> technology", the effect
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
'Lo Mark,
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:24:29 -0800 your time, you said:
MW> Are you suggesting that there is a way to prevent Mailwasher from doing
MW> this?
No, I wasn't suggesting it, but as the question has been asked, yes, you can
easily prevent Mail
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, 10:07:00 AM, Peter Palmreuther wrote:
> I'm sorry for being forced to disillusionate you, but this "faking
> bounces" ain't "fighting spam" even in the slightest way. It has
> nothing in common with any successful "spam fighting technology", the
> effect of bounces
Hello Mean,
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002 at 4:56:49 AM you [MD] wrote (at least
in part):
>> So I, as postmaster, would be receiving bounce messages from users who
>> have been spoofing my return address and routing? That'll get them
>> kicked off the system as fast as I can dig up my logs.
>
its incorporation
into TB, which renders me properly aghast.
S> has ever complained about the way it bounces messages, until now. I suspect
S> that Mailwasher's apparent popularity and success would have been quickly
S> arrested if the methods it employs to bounce mail were rejec
Wednesday, December 4, 2002, 7:55:00 AM, you wrote:
> Great.
> So I, as postmaster, would be receiving bounce messages from users who
> have been spoofing my return address and routing? That'll get them
> kicked off the system as fast as I can dig up my logs.
With the number of bounced message
Wednesday, December 4, 2002, 3:27:39 AM, you wrote:
> And a bounce is also good for having spambots validate e-mail addresses
> depending on the routing path of the bounce. If The_Bat! was the
> bouncer it shows the mail bounced from The_Bat!'s receiver address,
> back through your ISP's SMTP se
ion about it,
fine, but I didn't design Mailwasher, I use it, and as far as I know no one
has ever complained about the way it bounces messages, until now. I suspect
that Mailwasher's apparent popularity and success would have been quickly
arrested if the methods it employs to bounce mail
Simon-
Tuesday, December 3, 2002, 2:35:17 PM, you wrote:
>> How does MailWasher bounce messages? A. MailWasher uses an algorithm to
>> determine the best route to send the bounced message back (from, reply to,
>> return path) and actually sends the bounce back via your ISP's postmaster,
>> so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
'Lo DG,
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:57:39 -0500 your time, you said:
DRS> And a bounce is also good for having spambots validate e-mail addresses
DRS> depending on the routing path of the bounce. This is how you
DRS> plan to stop spam in your inbox? N
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tuesday, December 03, 2002
4:51:44 PM
RE: "Bounce Mail"
Greetings Mean,
On Tuesday, December 3, 2002, 1:42:26 PM, you wrote:
MD> Tuesday, December 3, 2002, 11:41:28 PM, you wrote:
>> * Mean Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Tuesday, December 3, 2002, 11:41:28 PM, you wrote:
> * Mean Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> One feature I would like is to have TB bounce my mail.
> Why?
It sometimes helps to have your email removed from spam lists. I agree
a lot of addresses from where spam originates are fake but from
* Mean Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One feature I would like is to have TB bounce my mail.
Why?
--
Best regards, Carsten
Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
One feature I would like is to have TB bounce my mail. Mailwasher does
it effortlessly...generates a mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
mails it back to the recipient...TB should be able to handle it
without losing sleep about it.
Anyway to do it using Macros or scripts?
--
Best regards,
Mean
34 matches
Mail list logo
