On 24 Mar 2005 at 18:13, Marilyn Davis wrote about
"Re: [exim] Heads up?":
| On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Fred Viles wrote:
|...
| > You're looking at a server log entry, not a bounce message.
|
| Yes. I guess I trimmed too much off the previous message. I'm sorry.
|
| Here's more context:
|...
That's still just your log entry. I thought you were trying to say
that in your experiment the bounce message generated by Exchange
included more of the SMTP 5xx message. In which case the usefull
thing to show would be the bounce message. But since your experiment
didn't involve Mike's Exchange server, I must have misunderstood.
What was your point, just that exim doesn't have the same problem as
Exchange?
| > | I mean. Errors give collateral spam too, even when they are generated
| > | at smtp time.
| >
| > Only if the offending message was offered by a relay MTA, then it
| > will generate a DSN that could be collateral spam. But that would be
|
| So, my machine offered the offending message -- to another of my
| machines. All exim, of course.
|
| Is there some reason why a spammer won't do what I did?
Yes. There is no benefit to the spammer to generate bounce messages
when their spew is rejected. Most spam is delivered by dedicated
spamware, not a general purpose MTA. And mostly is directly
delivered, not relayed through a smarthost.
|...
| It only helps with collateral spam if the original spam told the truth
| about the envelope sender?
No. It helps with collateral spam because very often there is no
relay MTA involved. When you reject the message, that's the end of
it. The spamware does not generate bounce messages.
- Fred
