Re: [exim] Gmail's new 'suspicious sender' flag

Hi, Jeff

On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 13:44:33 -0700 in message 201107061344.33522.blists@???,
from Jeff Lasman <blists@???> received here at 06/07/2011 22:54:39
It was said:

> On Wednesday, July 06, 2011 12:48:26 pm Bill Hayles wrote:
>
> > Not necessarily. There are several end-user anti-spam packages, such as
> > Mailwasher, which will bounce rejected mail and make it appear that the
> > mail was never delivered.
>
> Nope. Once the mail has been received by the server, there's no way to tell
> the sending server you won't accept it; you already have.

Agreed; I appreciate the difference.
>

>
> As I wrote above, it's worse than dubious. It's dangerous, and will
> eventually get you listed on blocklists; maybe even mine.

Since I don't do it, I'm glad to say that I won't trigger it.


>
> > I know I only run a very small server, but the volume of
> > mail received by what I term "blunderbuss attacks" far exceeds spam to
> > genuine addresses. By blunderbuss what I mean is that the spammer
> > obviously has a list of common user names - john@???,
> > peter@??? etc, and sends mail in the hope that the address exists.
> > With large mail servers, they probably do. For a domain and server with
> > 25 or so accounts, very often they don't, but they still arrive despite
> > the bounces.
>
> They arrive at your gate, but unless you've got a catchall address implemented
> for each domain, they don't get further.

It's for that very reason that I don't have a catchall address.
>
> > This is Spain. We do things differently here!
>
> You sure do <smile>!

Try telling that to some of my Expat mailing list members, at whom that
signature is aimed.

What about this?
--
'Tis far better to have snipped too much than to never
have snipped at all. -- (author unknown)
Bill Hayles
billnot@???