Re: Unusual spam recently - hummm
Incoming from Alvin Oga:
>
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, David Stanaway wrote:
>
> > X-Original-To: david@stanaway.net
> > Delivered-To: david@stanaway.net
> > Received: from host-69-145-228-124.client.bresnan.net (unknown
> > [69.145.228.124]) by david.dialmex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id
> > CF733146132E
> > for <david@stanaway.net>; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:31:35 -0500 (CDT)
> > X-Message-Info: 8+ggs369/bIdvoHulUPnaKEY41Q[1
> > Message-Id: <20040603143135.CF733146132E@david.dialmex.net>
> > Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:31:35 -0500 (CDT)
> > From: easqtl@qwest.net
> > To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>
> why is your spam filter allowing 3 basic "spam signs" thru ??
> - email to "undisclosed-recipients" should be bounced
>
> - email from non-existent hosts should be bounced
> host-69-145-228-124.client.bresnan.net
>
> - email from easqtl@qwest.net should be bounced since
> its not coming from bresnan.net
Assuming my incoming mail is POPped off my ISP's mailhost and my
outgoing mail goes to my ISP's mailhost, how do I implement this?
If I can't, what does my ISP have to do to implement this?
Is it feasible for busy sites to implement this or is this going to
cost them too much, in comparison to simply accepting it and dropping
it? In other words, what's my ISP's busy admin likely to say when I
suggest this?
That's at least one good reason why this crap gets through. I'd love
to implement this, or have my ISP implement this, but I doubt it's
going to happen soon.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling
- -
Reply to: