Spam Bouncing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deni
  • Start date Start date
D

Deni

Is there really any point in bouncing spam? I have recently started using
Mailwasher and wondering if "spam bounce" achieves anything other than just
increasing traffic congestion. Any opinions please?

Thanks
 
Why are you asking this in an anti virus News Group ?

Spam is not virus related. Please post your query in a spam related News Group.

Dave



| Is there really any point in bouncing spam? I have recently started using
| Mailwasher and wondering if "spam bounce" achieves anything other than just
| increasing traffic congestion. Any opinions please?
|
| Thanks
|
|
 
Why are you asking this in an anti virus News Group ?

Spam is not virus related. Please post your query in a spam related News Group.

Dave



| Is there really any point in bouncing spam? I have recently started using
| Mailwasher and wondering if "spam bounce" achieves anything other than just
| increasing traffic congestion. Any opinions please?
|
| Thanks
|
|
Click to expand...
If you are that keen on netiquette, why are you top posting :-)

Seriously tho, I see a lot of firewall or spam related Qs in here.

But to answer the Q, no, there is no point in bouncing - all it does
is tell the spammer you have a valid address that they reached. They
are not fooled by mailwasher, and even if they were,do you think that
they pay much attention to cleaning up their address lists ?

cheers
 
: On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 12:27:38 GMT, "David H. Lipman"
:
: >Why are you asking this in an anti virus News Group ?
: >
: >Spam is not virus related. Please post your query in a spam related News
Group.
: >
: >Dave
: >
: >
: >
: >| Is there really any point in bouncing spam? I have recently started
using
: >| Mailwasher and wondering if "spam bounce" achieves anything other than
just
: >| increasing traffic congestion. Any opinions please?
: >|
: >| Thanks
: >|
: >|
: >
: If you are that keen on netiquette, why are you top posting :-)
:
: Seriously tho, I see a lot of firewall or spam related Qs in here.
:
: But to answer the Q, no, there is no point in bouncing - all it does
: is tell the spammer you have a valid address that they reached. They
: are not fooled by mailwasher, and even if they were,do you think that
: they pay much attention to cleaning up their address lists ?
:

There is an even better reason not to bounce. Spammers often use
a-mailadresses or domains of innocent people or companies.

If you bounce spam, some person gets flooded with it.

See also
alt.spam
alt.kill.spammers
alt.stop.spamming
etc

Every once in a while a private person or small bizznisman complains how he
or she gets flooded with bounces, hatemail, mailbombs etc etc because some
spammers used their domain or adress.
 
It has nothing to do with netiquette it has everything to do with why this News Group
exists.

And as for the; Top Posting <---->Bottom Posting argument

It's the biggest crock of BS on the Internet.

Dave :-)



| If you are that keen on netiquette, why are you top posting :-)
|
| Seriously tho, I see a lot of firewall or spam related Qs in here.
|
| But to answer the Q, no, there is no point in bouncing - all it does
| is tell the spammer you have a valid address that they reached. They
| are not fooled by mailwasher, and even if they were,do you think that
| they pay much attention to cleaning up their address lists ?
|
| cheers
|
| --
| Alastair Smeaton
 
That's funny !

Dave


| On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 13:21:08 GMT, David H. Lipman wrote in
| <[email protected]>:
|
| >And as for the; Top Posting <---->Bottom Posting argument
|
| If you want to 'top-post', fine, but then please don't include the post
| you're replying to.
|
 
Frans Meijer said:
If you want to 'top-post', fine, but then please don't include the post
you're replying to.
Click to expand...

Now that is one of the stupidest comments I have read.
 
Frans:

If I strip out the referencing text it can no longer be a Top Post nor bottom Post now can
it.

It becomes an unreferenced reply.

Dave



| On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 15:41:44 GMT, "Buffalo"
| <YSHAb.452774$Tr4.1254898@attbi_s03>:
|
| >| >>
| >> If you want to 'top-post', fine, but then please don't include the post
| >> you're replying to.
| >
| >Now that is one of the stupidest comments I have read.
| >
|
| Why?
|
 
Let's keep those under 18yrs old out of it.

Dave ;-)



| On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:22:30 GMT, David H. Lipman wrote in
| <[email protected]>:
|
| >Frans:
| >
| >If I strip out the referencing text it can no longer be a Top Post nor bottom Post now
can
| >it.
|
| I see, that is funny. Shows the elegance of my suggestion ;)
|
| >It becomes an unreferenced reply.
|
| Ah, that is just a minor problem.
|
 
Frans:

If I strip out the referencing text it can no longer be a Top Post nor bottom Post now can
it.
Click to expand...

I see, that is funny. Shows the elegance of my suggestion ;)
It becomes an unreferenced reply.
Click to expand...

Ah, that is just a minor problem.
 
Back
Top