Lyle D. Gunderson at 2002-11-11 19:15 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 16:10:40 -0500, The Count of CipherSpace ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is alleged to have written:
<snip> >>I should have mentioned this before. Instead of accepting the messages, >>you could do one of the following: >> >><*@domain1.com> = spamtrap >><*@domain1.com> = error >><*@domain1.com> = null >> >>the last one will just silently discard the message. >> >But he would actually want to route it to error, right? So the harvester >would not think it a valid email address? Since, most spam has faked/forged/non-existant return paths, and the spammers keep sending to invalid addresses in any case, it is a matter of personal choice. I think of it as: why waste server resources and outgoing bandwidth, trying to deliver to a message that either won't get delivered or no one will look at? >Or would it be better to route it to spamtrap? Would this do any good, >since it would only work for this domain, anyway? Most spammers these days send messages with just the one recepient, so spamtrap has limited value. ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
