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 that
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 want to use it
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 use
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 Auto
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
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 the
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] :
MCOne more thing: if you like I could send you a bounced message
MCfrom KMail when I get home this weekend, so you can see what it
MClooks like for
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 message
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! whereas if
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.
With
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 and faked
-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
-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 of
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 it
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
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 I
-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.
- 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 review of bouncing from a
postmaster's
- 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
investigate
before throwing tantrums
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
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
-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 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
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.
--
Cheers,
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
* 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
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 what
-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] writes:
One feature I would like
-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. snip This is how you
DRS plan to stop spam in your inbox?
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 it
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 were rejected/frowned upon
by ISPs...I'd
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
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 messages
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 rejected/frowned upon
S by ISPs...I'd have expected
34 matches
Mail list logo
