Re: OT: spam
- From: Mike Bayliss <mike.bayliss@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 20:46:14 +0200
On Wed, 20 May 2009 14:39:26 GMT, the Omrud
<usenet.omrud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't agree that the bounces are spam. If you send an email to a
non-existent address in my employer's mail domain, you will quite
properly get a bounce saying that the mail cannot be delivered
(something like "there is no such mail address on this domain"). The
"senders" of the bounce messages are merely mail servers which have
received an email, apparently from Jane, addressed to their domain but
to a non-existent email account. Replying with a "not known here" is
perfectly reasonable (and probably required by the relevant rfc).
It depends if it's an inline bounce or a delayed bounce.
If the message is rejected during the mail transfer the rejection will
go to whoever is actually delivering the spam.
If the message is accepted, then rejected at a later time when there
is no connection to the sender, the rejection message is spam.
"perfectly reasonable" might have been true 15 years ago, it no longer
is. In this particular case Jane is close to losing a usable email
address because of the actions of spammers (assisted by incompetent
mail administrators) - I would in no way regard that as perfectly
reasonable.
Mike
--
BA9020C 26/11/2003 - The triumph of accounting over engineering.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: spam
- From: Kate Brown
- Re: OT: spam
- References:
- OT: spam
- From: Jane Vernon
- Re: OT: spam
- From: Derek Turner
- Re: OT: spam
- From: the Omrud
- OT: spam
- Prev by Date: Re: Radio Times Spoilers - Week Beginning 24th May
- Next by Date: Re: OT: spam
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: spam
- Next by thread: Re: OT: spam
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|