On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Kelson Vibber wrote: > At 12:06 PM 2/9/2004, Wess Bechard wrote: > >If you do use procmail, you can use virus.email to send a message as a > >bounce back. :) > Right. That way you can send bogus bounce notices to people who didn't > send you attachments in the first place, thus doubling the amount of > traffic generated by a virus outbreak without actually notifying the people > whose computers *are* infected.
HEY! Where do we go to invent new STANDARDS for Mail Transports? I think it's bad enough that we often end up bouncing mail to an innocent third party, but when the sender does not exist, and it gets bounced back to us, that is even *more* of a waste. So I was wondering if we could put together a 'movement' to insert a new 'standard' header, call it "X-BOUNCES: No" or something like that, so that any mail transport that sees that header knows that it should *not* bounce the mail? Even if not everyone checks for it, at least when the bounce comes back, we can check for it ourselves and trashcan the bounced bounce..... :-) Along a similar line, is there any way to cross-check the 'from' address against the 'received' headers so that in cases where they don't match, we can perhaps decide not to 'bounce' the mail if it is undeliverable? - Charles
