[SpamCop-List] Re: Bouncing spam

[David Dean]

"Stuart Brook" <s_brook.nothere> wrote in
message news:3E42BC7D.1CC367A1
> David Dean wrote:
> >     But he has specifically said dozens of times that he isn't talking
about
> > mailwasher...
>
> He was the one that jumped on the idea that filtering and then
> "bouncing" messages, however done, is a good thing.

    Why does that automatically imply that he will be forging a
"postmaster@" address to do it?

> >     But if you're using a spamtrap, what difference does it make?
>
> If you're using a spamtrap, then your goal surely is different and you
> are looking to report the spam sender.

    Say someone sends email to an account of mine say "me", my
interpretation of what is being suggested is as follows.

    Somehow the message is determined to be spam (*I* don't care how.)

a) If it is in fact spam, follow the RFC's that he quotes to generate a
message (some may call "bounce") that says the mail was refused with a
sender of "spamtrap" (Thus no forging or other
illegal/impropper activity)
    i) if spam's from is forged from, it'll bounce back to the spamtrap.
    ii) if spam is from adress harvester, the spamtrap will be confirmed,
not the orignally spammed account.
In either case i) or ii) the harm (over and above that already caused by the
spammer) seem to be self inflicted.

b) If the mail was not in fact spam, follow the RFC's that he quotes to
generate a message (some may call "bounce") that says the mail was refused
with a sender of "spamtrap" (Thus no forging or other
illegal/impropper activity) the legitimate sender will either attempt
contact with another method, or read the instructions on how to get past the
filter.
In this case, there is a (some would argue huge) benefit that false
positives should only delay communication instead of block it completely.

    The above is my understanding of what "Guy" was suggesting. Please help
me understand what is wrong with this idea.

--
-David