[linux-elitists] polluting spammers databases

David Shaw dshaw@jabberwocky.com
Tue May 22 10:49:23 PDT 2001


On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 01:34:29PM -0400, Andy Bastien wrote:

> > I don't think it's worth the time to give spammers addresses that
> > bounce.  They'll get removed from the list eventually.  Addresses that
> > seem good will get pressed onto CDs and circulate forever.
> > 
> 
> Bad address to hang around for a long time.  I was administrator at a
> company where addresses that I know have never been good received
> emails for over a year.  This could be an isolated case, and it could
> be the case that the only verification done on the addresses was
> whether the domain existed.  I would certainly be opposed to giving
> out thousands of bad addresses from an arbitrary valid domain,
> although if that domain were owned by a known spammer...hmm...

I doubt that addresses are verified at all.  Look at it this way -
when you are a spam CD supplier, it is in your interest to pack as
many addresses on the CD as possible.  It takes time/money to verify
them, and it makes you lose an address to honor remove requests.  Why
verify?

On the spam sender side, those are usually relayed through some random
open port 25 with a forged From_.  The spammer doesn't want and won't
see any bounces.

I still get spam to addresses @jabberwocky.com that I used years ago.
And those addresses do bounce back to the sender.

David

-- 
   David Shaw  |  dshaw@jabberwocky.com  |  WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
      We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list