Jon, you and people like you are responsible for incredible amounts of
fury from me when some virus or joejobber selects MY email address as
the supposed from address. Bounce it to a special place, scan it yourself,
then toss it. The rest of your family will never have to see it. (Of
course, you DO know who SHOULD be sending email to your children and
can see if that got marked as spam.
Aside from the joejob cr*p this sends out ask yourself what the heck
good is an email bounce? Can the victim of the false positive do
anything about it? There's a fibblewart on the DirectX mailing list
who sent me an email complaining about something. I tried to reply
and it bounced. Now what do I do? I either spend a lot of effort to
send it from an alternative address or I simply mark him down as a
twit and ignore him. My address was blocked by a VERY old black hole
list. He elects to use it so he loses. I'm not about to burden the
list with it. That's simply an example. I've been known to use procmail
to drop email from such people into the /dev/null hole in the world.
So at least in my case it may be lucky you've not email bounced me.
You get an explanation rather than simply get perpetually ignored. I
do not like people who inconvenience a couple hundred people a day so
that one person a day or even one a week who was unjustly tagged as
spam gets an alert about which he or she can probably do nothing.
Think boy. Think.
{+_+}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Fullmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Okay. I can appreciate this argument (having worked in large companies
> myself). But I don't know that this method would be as well applied in my
> environment. In a big company (or in any company), you're far safer
> inconveniencing your users (i.e., tagging and releasing) because of the
> danger of bouncing back false positives.
>
> This is a home environment. My users never want to be bothered with spam.
> They don't want to have to set up filters on their clients. They never
want
> to see it. Here, I've found that it's far easier to address the
occasional
> false positive with the sender.
>
> As far as saving the environment, I'm well familiar with the fact that a
> HUGE percentage of spam has a spoofed e-mail address in its envelope and
> header, thus making bouncebacks pointless. However, for the sake of the
> sender, a bounceback seems the most logical way to let a false positive
know
> that their message has not been received. This is why I would bounce back
> rather than, say, just drop the message.
>
> I'm open to arguments either way. I certainly want to focus on what's most
> productive for the anti-spam community. But I'm really more interested in
> an answer to my original question. Does anyone know how I might do this?
>
> - Jon
>
> on 8/7/04 9:35 AM, Gary Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Tag and release... Tag and release... It'll save the environment.
> >
> > We had a big problem with emails from company X (x being a financial
> > institution) being tagged as spam for a while. These emails contained
> > daily valuation reports critical information to some of the clients that
> > we hosted email for. Though the got tag they still received them. If
> > they wouldn't have it could have cost them lots of money.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jon Fullmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 8:26 AM
> > To: Michele: Blacknight Solutions;
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Log, but don't tell
> >
> > (Timidly, Jon answers): uh,... yes?
> >
> > on 8/7/04 8:54 AM, Michele: Blacknight Solutions at
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat 07 Aug 2004 15:41, Jon Fullmer wrote:
> >>
> >>> Right now, I have my action_bounce message including only the total
> > score
> >>> [$hits]. This is the way I would like to keep it, as I would rather
> > not
> >>> give actual spammers more information to circumvent my system.
> >> Are you actually bouncing spam?? Please tell me I misread that
> >>
> >
> >
> >
