Re: [exim] Out of Office and collateral spam

--On 21 December 2007 11:28:12 -0800 Jeroen van Aart <kroshka@???>
wrote:

> Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> You've missed the point. An OoO reply to a spam message will almost
>
> I don't think I missed it.
>
>> If I send you a message, and I get an auto-reply from you, of course
>> that's not spam. If I get 1000 autoreplies per day, in response to a
>> message that I didn't send, then that's spam.
>
> Not necessarily. Because each message is sent by a different auto
> replier. From your perspective it may feel like spam (ugh ;-)

And, who else is qualified to make that judgement?

> it can't
> be pinpointed to one person who is sending you all this.

No, it can't. That's not the point. It's a problem that can't be resolved
by one person, but by collective action.

> Unless of course you could blame the spammer for the backscatter caused
by spam.
> Which I guess isn't as easy, seeing it is already hard to at least
> legally blame spammer.
>
>> It can be, if used with caution. You need to have a very good spam
>> filter in front of it.
>
> I found it needs no filter in order to work right. Also I must see the
> first case where someone gets 1000s of auto replies due to this.
>

I've seen several instances over the past few years where I've had to
disable user accounts here because of backscatter. This isn't simply a
theoretical problem.


> Regards,
> Jeroen



--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
x3148