Recursive

Bounce Spam?

Written by

jezmck

in

I, like a lot of people, get a lot of [tag]spam[/tag] [tag]email[/tag]s.
I get a lot of these via a catch-all, but I’m now turning that off. Should I bounce or just ignore those messages?

I’d like to think that the spammers would be put off by emails bounced back to them, but think I have to accept that they probably won’t even get the bounces, so I’d just be creating a little more pointless internet traffic.

Perhaps the ‘[tag]email tax[/tag]’ suggestions should be adapted to only make people pay for bounced emails?

Comments

2 responses to “Bounce Spam?”

  1. TW avatar
    TW

    Personally I would go with the leaving the catch all and setting it up so it empties every few weeks (or days, depending on the volume).

    Bounces dont deter spammers – often the email addresses are so heavily faked the wrong person will get the bounce and think you are spamming them. Also, as you mention, it would just add to network traffic.

    As an aside, it is “good practice” to have an address like “webmaster@example.com” so people can send generic emails / problem reports.

    Oh, yeah – good blog 🙂

    Reply
  2. jazzle avatar
    jazzle

    Thanks for the suggestions (and the compliment!) TW.

    The webmaster@ and postmaster@ addresses often get as much spam in my experience, and it’s a shame that spammers don’t realise that the people who see the emails sent to those addresses are probably the least likely to respond.

    Perhaps the real problem is the people who respond to the emails at all.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More posts