Re: [tlug] Using autoresponse

[Godwin Stewart <godwin.stewart@??>]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:58:07 +0100, Sigurd Urdahl <sigurdur@??>
wrote:

> Let me clarify; "Why would you assume that people/spammers/bots would
> _target_ such a service?"

Let *me* clarify. The "such a service" part in your question is
irrelevant. If it's an e-mail address that has been discovered by
spammers, it'll get swamped in short order. Period. Spammers aren't
going to target it any more than they already target any of my addresses
or my array of spam traps.

And rest assured, it *will* get discovered by spammers. All it takes is
a legitimate user of the service running a Windows machine to become
infected with malware that harvests e-mail addresses off the host and
sends them to the spammer. "Windows machine" and "become infected" are
almost redundant.

> Of course such a solution will "spam" by backscattering. But, I
> believe the amount of backscatter will be quite insignificant in a
> global context.

Any avoidable backscatter is unacceptable. Just because it's
"insignificant in a global context" is no excuse for letting it happen.
All it takes is for *ONE* backscatter mail to be directed to some
e-mail addresses for the source to become listed in well-reputed DNSBLs
such as SpamHaus, SpamCop, CBL etc.

> It would comparable with a closed email account, and I hope noone
> really believes it's a good idea to keep accepting (and possibly
> /dev/null'ing) emails for closed accounts.

EXPN?

> > Such notifications are unsolicited.....
>
> Each one is a response to an incoming email.

That was sent by someone other than the person who will receive the
notification. Ergo, the recipient of the notification did *NOT* solicit
it, ergo it's unsolicited.

> That makes it non-bulk in my book.

Right, so a spammer mailbombs me indirectly by causing misconfigured
mail gateways to drown me in backscatter, but I can't complain because
it's not bulk? On what planet?

> But I agree, the backscatter will be unsolicited and email. Though,
> it does not make it any more spam than other backscatter.

And how, ptray tell, does that justify sending it?

> > What do you think spammers are? Angels who abide by rules? They
> > *are* vandals.
>
> No. Maybe some of them are, but the bulk (pun intended) of the
> spammers run businesses and are into this for money.

And they don't care about how they go about "earning" that money.

> Personally I agree. That does not mean that the marketing department
> or boss will agree.

And just because a marketing department or PHB doesn't agree that
closed-loop opt-in is the only way to go doesn't make anything else
right.

> The premier, and most effective, frontier against spam is in the
> recieving end.

It has become necessary because people on the sending end aren't
prepared to do squat their side.

> > It can today, in a climate where 95% of e-mails floating around the
> > 'Net are fraudulent.
>
> I disagree.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

> As long as there is money to made from it, companies will make lists,
> sell lists, buy lists.

and get blocklisted....

--
G. Stewart - godwin.stewart@??

Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.

Attachment: pgpYHNWxesMcB.pgp
Description: PGP signature