mrmaxx Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 I have a couple admins I have repeatedly reported backscatter bounces to. Their reply: Hello SpamCop user, This e-mail is not spam but bounce on forged sender. Our email server has just replied to a spoofed email If you need more information, please contact us. Regards, Abuse Staff http://www.supereva.it/ http://www.dada.net/ Any suggestions on how to educate them that what they are doing is just as bad as spamming? I've tried sending them a link to the SC faq on this, but they have just ignored it. Can I nominate them for "RFC-Ignorant" status or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 I have a couple admins I have repeatedly reported backscatter bounces to. Their reply: Any suggestions on how to educate them that what they are doing is just as bad as spamming? I've tried sending them a link to the SC faq on this, but they have just ignored it. Can I nominate them for "RFC-Ignorant" status or what? 33085[/snapback] ...AIUI, bouncing (even to a forged sender) is in compliance with an RFC, so I doubt reporting them for RFC-ignorant is appropriate (unless there's somewhere to report RFCs that are ignorant of the current state of the internet <g>). My suggestion would be to just keep reporting the misdirected bounces to SpamCop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmaxx Posted September 22, 2005 Author Share Posted September 22, 2005 ...AIUI, bouncing (even to a forged sender) is in compliance with an RFC, so I doubt reporting them for RFC-ignorant is appropriate (unless there's somewhere to report RFCs that are ignorant of the current state of the internet <g>). My suggestion would be to just keep reporting the misdirected bounces to SpamCop. 33091[/snapback] Bummer... I was afraid of that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 I've had three such messages from abuse[at]supereva.it myself. They appear not to believe in playing nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 I've had three such messages from abuse[at]supereva.it myself. They appear not to believe in playing nice.33096[/snapback] Make that five. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Unfortunately, the sending of traditional auto-responses, misdirected bounces, and challenges is not yet a violation of any RFC, but it is grounds for listing by the SCBL, and (as I learned via SBL33313) by the SBL. I usually write that misdirected bounces are now considered abusive and reportable by SpamCop per the "Messages which may be reported" section of "On what type of email should I (not) use SpamCop?" at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/14.html and the "Misdirected bounces" section of "Why are auto-responders (and delayed bounces) bad?" at http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html#bounces . You might also want to quote from Backscatter from spam firewalls and anti-virus systems: So-called "spam firewalls," software running in front of production servers to process out spam and viruses, can be a problem for other networks if they simply deflect the spam on to other mailboxes. Most spam and all mail-borne viruses use a forged Sender address, and bouncing it back to that address only results in sending unwanted and burdensome mail to innocent third parties. Either reject the SMTP connection with a 5xy message, silently discard it (your firewall identified it as spam, remember?), or file it in a quarantine area for *your* users to glean. Don't make it someone else's responsibility when they are almost certainly not involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.