Forum Moderators: phranque
It's those "Cannot Deliver" messages generated as a result of SPAMers forging my email address to do their dastardly deeds.
So then an admin lets his server bounce these messages back to me .. usually along with the original SPAM message.
The result is more secondary SPAM than original SPAM.
Sure, I can filter it, but why should it even be allowed to hit the ether? Think of the wasted bandwidth.
Is there something I'm missing or shouldn't admin folks be trying to reduce SPAM rather than adding to the burden?
EOC - Email Optimization Consultant
[webmasterworld.com...]
Then when I read that most email senders don't subscribe to the protocol, it brings me back to my original question.
As far as reporting the bounces as SPAM, I doubt that any will be read.
But my post actually questions the responsibilities of mail sender admins and how they should have a responsibility. The SPF seems to me to be little more than a band-aid.
But my post actually questions the responsibilities of mail sender admins and how they should have a responsibility.
It's a difference of how MTAs handle messages to non-existing accounts or other immediate problems with delievery.
For example, qmail would accept the message and then send a bounce, while postfix would simply refuse to accept the message in the first place and make the bounce notification a responsibility of the original sending MTA.
There is not much that could be done aside from changing the MTA.