3 ms·
Well, possibly, though spam is a pretty high volume game, and my guess is it's not worth the time for the mass spammers to analyze a few rejects (even if those
by arn 14y ago
Well, possibly, though spam is a pretty high volume game, and my guess is it's not worth the time for the mass spammers to analyze a few rejects (even if those rejects even do go to their actual address)
It depends on what you prioritize. I prioritize avoiding false-positives, so my spam filter of choice reflects that.
My current spam system (spamstopshere.com) does return bounce/reject messages depending on what filter the email triggers.
- thrownaway2424 14y agoYou're wrong. Spammers actively try to monitor their success rates and game the filters. As for the original idea, backscatter is to be avoided at all costs. Nobody likes bounce messages and so forth for mail they never sent. Much better to reject mail at SMTP time, than generate backscatter to the alleged envelope sender after the fact.
- arn 14y agoSo how would you prioritize avoiding false positives without backscatter? I get a lot of spam, so manually reading a spam folder is not a feasible solution.