[65546] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: incorrect spam setups cause spool messes on forwarders
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Brown (CV))
Tue Dec 2 05:37:52 2003
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 03:37:00 -0700
From: " John Brown (CV)" <jmbrown@chagresventures.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20031201211821.A17932@homebase.cluenet.de>; from dr@cluenet.de on Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:18:21PM +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
telling spammers 4xx or 5xx doesn't matter, they don't listen.
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 09:18:21PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:52:28PM -0700, Michael Lewinski wrote:
> > The idea is to "punish" spammers by filling up their queues, although
> > honestly I don't know of any spammers who actually *have* queues. They
> > just borrow other people's of course.
>
> Correct. More and more, anti-spammers are annoying me more than
> the spammers. Anti-spammers tend to "make my problem YOUR problem"
> thinking. Be it mangled sender addresses (this "NOSPAM" nonsense),
> be it 450 to suspected spam.
>
> Antispanners seem to be very easy in accepting collateral damage
> to the net.
>
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
