Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?
On 10/15/2014 12:34 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 at 12:06 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2014 8:14 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/14/2014 3:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> But you just said it was OK to delete emails.
>>>
>>> Please don't misquote me. I said it was the *worst case*, meaning,
>>> only marginally better than *bouncing* them, which you should never
>>> do.
>>>
>>> I certainly did not say it was 'OK'.
>>
>> You said it was OK. You may try to attack conditions to it - but
>> you still said it was OK.
>
> In a quick search, I haven't been able to find a mail from him which
> uses the term "OK", prior to the quoted one which is responding to your
> use of that term.
>
> He did say (in close paraphrase) that there are circumstances in which
> silently deleting received mails can be barely acceptable. That's a far
> cry from saying that it's "OK", either in the modern colloquial sense or
> in the literal original sense of "all correct".
>
>>>> I said NOTHING about security. I just don't want them to know
>>>> what the valid email addresses are.
>>>
>>> In my mind saying 'I am doing this because I don't want them to
>>> know what the valid email addresses are' is the exact same thing as
>>> saying 'I am doing this for security purposes.'.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with security, no matter is in your mind.
>
> What is the non-security-related reason why you don't want them to know
> what the valid E-mail addresses are?
>
Spammers buy and sell lists of email addresses. "Clean lists" - that
is, ones with few invalid email addresses, are worth more and are used
more than "dirty lists".
Spammers often test email servers by sending email to garbage addresses,
to see if they get a bounce. If they don't, they know the server does
not drop emails, and any address in that domain is suspect. So the
domain doesn't make a lot of the "clean" lists.
> I suspect that the reason is something which Tanstaafl would classify as
> falling under "security purposes".
>
There is no security involved here. Simply another means of
discouraging SPAM.
> Even if you don't come to agreement on whether that reason is a security
> reason, it might still be easier to "agree to disagree" if there's a
> clear understanding about exactly what you're disagreeing over, rather
> than just conflicting assertions about some consequence of that
> underlying point.
>
He thinks what I am doing "breaks SMTP" - but he can't point to any RFC
I am violating.
>>>>> Please explain what is *Seriously Fraudulent* or *otherwise
>>>>> inappropriate* about a typo in the recipient address of an
>>>>> otherwise perfectly legitimate email, Jerry.
>>>
>>>> How many valid emails do you get to a bad email address?
>>>
>>> Please answer the question.
>>
>> Any email to a bad email address is fraudulent and/or inappropriate.
>
> That's just repeating the assertion, not answering the question. It does
> not provide the requested explanation.
>
> What is fraudulent about a typo?
>
> What is inappropriate about a typo?
>
Nothing. But if you get a lot of typos, then you should be looking for
better quality customers. I don't see that at all in our logs.
All I see are fraudulent and/or inappropriate emails to addresses which
aren't even close to the ones on the servers.
Jerry
Reply to: