[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2004/11/09]
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 11:58:45PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 06:57:32PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >> Fuckers at Princeton University can't be bothered to read mail sent to
> >> postmaster@.
> >
> > You obviously don't get enough spam, viruses and backscatter to understand.
>
> I wouldn't object to normal junk filters; in fact I imagine there'd be
> no getting by without them. I have enough trouble finding false
> positives amid the heap of spam I get.
>
> The filters bloody well better be able to tell the difference between
> a piece of spam, and an abuse report quoting a piece of spam, though.
Viruses are easy.
Spam is pretty easy, though legit messages reporting spam are tricky.
In the future you'd be better off attaching the spam as a .gz file or
putting it up on the web somewhere rather than tempting fate.
Its backscatter that's the problem. Those mailings from "helpful" pieces
of anti-virus software that let you know that you've sent a virus (because
no-one could possibly spoof the From line). Or bounce messages due to
viruses using your mail address.
Its almost impossible to distinguish between backscatter and legit bounces.
Not at the volumes a public email address will receive.
Having been crushed in the past by backscatter myself to the point where I
nearly gave up on this email address, I can understand why a postmaster
address might be shut down. Any highly visible or predictable email address
these days is prone to a fuckton of backscatter.
--
Michael G Schwern schwern@xxxxx.xxx http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Quit looking, kids! It'll EAT YOUR MIND!!
-- http://www.angryflower.com/fuck.gif
There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:00 on 10 Nov 2004 by mariachi 0.52