on Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 02:59:19AM +0100, Pigeon (jah.pigeon@ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 06:57:16PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > Folks:
> >
> > I'm running Debian Testing, exim and procmail. Probably half my email is
> > spam, which procmail dutifully diverts into a spam folder. But I'm
> > wondering if it would be possible to get procmail to actually "bounce"
> > email back to senders when it's designated as spam. I know MTAs can do
> > this, but I imagine it's a complicated process, since headers have to be
> > examined, envelopes rewritten, etc. Also, to prevent loops, I'd have to
> > add a header like X-Loop to the email and examine it on inbound emails.
> >
> > Anyone know how to make procmail do this? Or is it a bad idea? Or what?
>
> It is a bad idea.
>
> Most spam has a spoofed From header, so your bounce doesn't go back to
> the spammer. It goes off to some poor unfortunate who has nothing to
> do with it. Therefore, you end up unwittingly becoming a spammer
> yourself.
>
> The best thing to do is to sign up with spamcop and report your spam
> through them. An alternative, though much more difficult, is to track
> down the geographical location of the originator and go and set off
> some EMP weapons.
What Pigeon said, and moreso.
If you dare bounce spam at me with a nastygram, you're going to be
permanently blacklisted by me, without warning or recourse. I get
enough bullshit spoof autoresponses as it is. Based on my sent-mail and
autoresponders, I send less than 1/3 the mail with my name on it some
weeks. What I *do* send, myself, is virtually always signed.
If you want to do something useful and run an MTA, configure it to
teergrube on receipt for spam. Exim4 has several example configs that
do this (by reputation). Every second you hold the connection open
costs the spammer ten outbound mails. Every minute, 600. On your
low-traffic mailserver, this is a cost you can easily afford.
The one bounce target I'd recommend is the US FTC's UBE address:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/02/eileenspam1.htm
uce@ftc.gov
Please *don't* take my word for it and *verify* that address before
using it -- we wouldn't want you Joe Jobbing on my account.
However, the FTC does say that they want your spam. I'm willing to give
it to 'em.
Otherwise: filter your mail, teergrube, and fuggedaboudit.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Backgrounder on the Caldera/SCO vs. IBM and Linux dispute.
http://sco.iwethey.org/
Attachment:
pgpRwTsgg4lMh.pgp
Description: PGP signature