# -----Original Message----- # From: IMail_Forum-owner@list.ipswitch.com # [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@list.ipswitch.com]On Behalf Of NetQuick Mail # Administrator # Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 10:46 AM # To: IMail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com # Subject: Re: ORBSSRC: RE: [IMail Forum] Time to fix "Refuse NULL <> # Senders" option! # # # I just thought I'd toss this in as other possibilities. # These solutions # would help eliminate the other spammers who forge Email headers, # steal Email # accounts, or hijack servers. # # Have you taken a look at IMgate? It's free software and requires # minimal hardware on your end. There is also Declude which is the lowest # price anti-spam gateway that I know of short of being free. It # is loaded on # the same server as your Imail. Both solutions have received good # reviews in # this forum. # # # # # ----- Original Message ----- # From: "PC Tech" <pctech@mybellybutton.com> # To: <IMail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com> # Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:26 PM # Subject: RE: ORBSSRC: RE: [IMail Forum] Time to fix "Refuse NULL # <> Senders" # option! # # # > I know and am aware of the drawbacks. But it's a benefit versus risk # thing. # > I get more benefit from it than risk, so I do it. # > # > Percentage-wise the majority of the spam I get is from null senders. # > Personally, I'd rather NOT have to use the null sender option. But, on # the # > other hand, I am not paying a mint for some damn anti-spam # front end that # > won't work well with null senders. *IF* they pass that # legislation where # > spammers will get fined $500 for each spam, then I will disable it and # then # > charge them for each and every spam that my users get. # > # > I have a ZERO tolerance policy on spam. # > # > # -----Original Message----- # > # From: IMail_Forum-owner@list.ipswitch.com # > # [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@list.ipswitch.com]On Behalf Of R. # Scott Perry # > # Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 10:07 AM # > # To: IMail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com # > # Subject: RE: ORBSSRC: RE: [IMail Forum] Time to fix "Refuse NULL <> # > # Senders" option! # > # # > # # > # # > # ># but no longer are. Same with refusing <>. It causes other # postmasters # > # ># troubles. # > # >It only causes the postmasters that allow their mail users that SEND # mail # > # >with null headers problems the way I see it # > # # > # The problem arises if you send an E-mail to a non-existant user on one # of # > # our domains. If our mail server bounces the message back to you, # > # your mail # > # server is going to choke on it, and send it back to # > # postmaster@one_of_our_domains.com. Then, we have to deal with your # > # mistake. That's why many mail admins want to use this new # > # dsn.rfc-ignorant.com test. # > # # > # >If every mail server blocked null senders, the problem would # > # probably go away. # > # # > # Yes, but nobody would ever get any bounce messages. Bounce # messages are # > # there for a reason. # > # # > # >According to my logs, my mail server bounces between 5 and 10 # > # messages a day # > # >based on null sender. # > # # > # Have you checked to see how many of those are spam, and how many # > # are bounce # > # messages that you're making another postmaster deal with (perhaps the # one # > # that is going to block your mail server)? # > # # > # Even if they are all spam, how many spams do you get per day that # > # don't use # > # the NULL sender? I've just gone back a bit further, and of # the past 68 # > # spams we've received, not one has used a NULL sender. # > # # > # Of course, you are free to block NULL senders, just so long as you are # > # aware of the possible consequences. If you know the drawbacks, and # still # > # want to do it, it's your choice. My goal is just to make sure # > # that you and # > # others are aware of the drawbacks, and why we feel it's a bad choice. # > # # > # -Scott # > # # > # Declude: Anti-spam and Anti-virus solutions for IMail. # > http://www.declude.com # > # > # > # > # > # > # > # > # > # > # > # > # > # > # > # > # > # # # # # # # # #