Tony Boom: > [MailWasher's Mail Bouncer] is a feature I never use. Good!
My point is that the software suggest and promotes a feature that adds to the spam problem: Say that a spam is misusing your address as Sender. Would you dislike Mailwasher to accuse you of spamming and thus "bounce back unwanted email to the spammer [that's you!] so it looks as if [their] address is not valid"? Yes, you would! Yet, for those that use this "feature", MailWasher is sending out thousands of false accusations (bounces) every day to innocent bystanders! Those are people that had their mail address forged into a spam as Sender. This is something Mail- Washer _promotes_! Such a "feature" looks good on paper - and that's why MailWasher uses it as an argument to go with their software! In reality though, the "feature" adds to the problem as soon as innocent bystanders are receiving messages accusing them of sending mail to people they have never contacted. Tony Boom: > You don't need Mailwasher to bounce mail though, The Bat is more than > capable of doing that on it's own with a simple QT. I wouldn't suggest bounce mail after reception UNLESS one is absolutely sure the message is really going back to the correct Sender. Best way of bouncing a mail is at SMTP-level. Marck D Pearlstone: > Spamcop do filter spam for you, but only if you use a spamcop.net email > address, which you are not doing, so it's not that. In the stricked sense, this could be true. However, it is quite easy to create a system that checks with the SpamCop.Net's database whether an IP/URL (relay/spamvertised site) is listed WITHOUT having a subscription. You don't need to have a subscription with SpamCop.Net to do lookups. There are always (kegal) ways around things. :) Tony Boom: > I quite like the idea of [SpamCop filtering] for 16 quid a year, what do > you think? I like it to - but as I have said earlier in this thread: One can (and should) not trust it fully. I use SpamCop as an nominator. SpamCop lacks a lot of important functionality. You can not trust SpamCop alone, you can not trust SpamAssassin alone, etc. etc. Personally, I spent a lot of time creating a system here - I would say it has much of the funtionality Spam- Cop lacks. :) I reckon some of the solutions I have implemented would be too demanding on a system like SpamCop considering the amount of mail they are to handle every day (I remember I was really surprised when they added SpamAssassin to their filterings). Tony Boom: > It's my NTL account I get most spam in, dozens and dozens of them. That's > why I don't use it anymore. Would you want to try it with my system? I can collect your NTL spam/ham and send it back to you - I would welcome test users this way. Let me know! -- St ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
