--On 30 March 2006 15:15:47 +0100 Peter Bowyer <peter@???> wrote:
> On 30/03/06, Jason Meers <Jason.Meers@???> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I hope this isn't bad form posting these links on the list, but I think
>> some of you may genuinely find this useful.
>>
>> It poses some interesting questions about joe-job bounce messages and
>> their potential misuse to evade _some_ types of spam filters.
>>
>> The article is here:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/30/joe_job_twist/
>>
>> This history of the joe-job can be found here:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe-job
>
> Nothing new here - MTAs shouldn't bounce to unverified sender
> addresses - end of story.
They're not. They're bouncing to verified (or known good) sender addresses.
It's the original recipient address that was deliberately undeliverable -
in order to persuade the MTA to bounce a message to the verifiable sender.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
