Re: [exim] Out of Office and collateral spam

Phil (Medway Hosting) wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc Perkel" <marc@???>
> To: "Jeroen van Aart" <kroshka@???>
> Cc: <exim-users@???>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [exim] Out of Office and collateral spam
>
>
>
>> I have a little different take on the out of office backscatter. Even
>> though it is somewhat annoying I actually count ham points for it when
>> it comes to my blacklisting because spammers don't host auto responders.
>> My take is that ham from people who have morons for email admins is
>> still ham. But to clarify, I do try to block spam generated OoO
>> backscatter, but I try to make sure that it doesn't count against the
>> host's IP karma score. The same is true of sender address verification.
>> Spammers aren't verifying addresses on incoming email.
>>
>
> What about spam pretending to be OOO ? e.g. "Sorry I am OOO - but you can
> always order online", and how would you distinguish between the 2 ?
>
>
>

Spam pretending to be OoO is still a problem. But in my case it just
means someone is not blacklisted that perhaps should be. Ultimately
false positives are a bigger mistake than false negatives. But it is
interesting having logic based on the idea that "spammers aren't stupid
enough to do xxx, therefore it's probably not a spam source".