Jump to content

Pangolin

Members
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Pangolin

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. Thanks for the additional information. But let me ask you, are they really "simply dropped"? I mean, if someone sends a spam message from "bill[at]microsoft.com" to my server, and my server bounces with the message you suggest above, won't "bill[at]microsoft.com" always get the message? Or are you saying this "bounce message" is something that happens at a lower-level, during the actual SMTP communicaiton itself, and thus only the people actually doing the sending would receive the message and not necessarily those whose email address just happens to be listed in the FROM line? I am not as much of an expert as you guys at servers, or configuration. What I can say is that I use a Linux server running Plesk 7.5. It is provided by a company called Server 4 You. I am not sure which mail package is installed per se, but in the options that configure how to respond to un-known email addresses, there is: * Bounce with message: the mail will be returned to sender with the bounce message you specify. * Forward to address: the mail will be forwarded to the address you specify. * Reject: the mail will be rejected during SMTP session without being queued for delivery. This option can save bandwidth and server resources. Right now, I have "Reject" specified, so that any emails that are just made-up targeting typical user names like "sally[at]" and "jerry[at]" and "jim[at]" will all be rejected. It is only on the email addresses that we formerly had real people that we were using the autoresponder method mentioned before. So I am not sure if the "Bounce with message" option is really what we are after or not... I suspect not... If there is someone here who is a server expert, and can help implement what Telerin suggested, we would be happy to pay an associated fee... I suppose it should be possible to send a private message on this message forum system if anyone can be of assistance... Bill
  2. Hi All, I have a question for all of you. We had a few email addresses that were used since 1997. As many email addresses do, they eventually gathered a lot of spam. We discontinued using those email addresses, but when we did, we put an autoresponder on them. The autoresponder did not include the original email so that it could not be used as a way to re-send spam messages. Instead, it informed the sender that they needed to use the "contact" form on our web site. The autoresponder also gave "More information about this message", informing the "sender" that they received this automatic response because either they themselves sent us an email, or because their address was used as the FROM address. The autoresponder also gave two methods for people to report any problems are abuses (telephone and direct web link), and lastly, we setup the server so that people would only get the autoresponse message once per day, regardless of how many emails our server received. This worked well for a while, but recently my ISP began receiving complaints that this autoresponse was spam. Not too many complants (only two so far, from two separate people), and I don't think our ISP was ever blocked. But still, it made us nervous, so we discontinued the autoresponder, at least for now... I realize that autoresponders can be a nuiscence, but still it does beg the question, are autoresponders ALWAYS considered to be "bad" in the eyes of Spamcop and similar organizations? Will an ISP eventually be blocked for something like a "on vacation" message? In this case, something like an autoresponder is absolutely necessary, to let our legitimate customers know how to contact us. Also, it gave those who were victims of spammers using their emaill address as the FROM line a way to report the abuse (although it seems they would rather report it to Spamcop than using our methods). In any case, I am wondering if we could turn back on our autoresponder under some condition -- some additional information that we would include or something like that. Or maybe we were already doing the right thing by not including the original message and already giving them a few ways to report abuses. Would someone (preferably official) please let me know if there are boundaries to this type of situation? Best regards, Bill
×