| |||||||||||||
Sender confirmationSender confirmationPosted Jun 3, 2004 17:34 UTC (Thu) by erwbgy (subscriber, #4104)Parent article: A look at SpamAssassin 3.0
I find that requiring sender confirmation for unknown addresses cuts down on my spam significantly. I use qconfirm, but I'm sure there are others. Any message from an unknown sender gets an automatic reply requesting that they confirm that they sent the message. Once they reply, the message ends up in my mailbox and the sender gets added to a whitelist. If no reply is received within a week then the message is discarded. Since spammers tend to use throw-away or invalid From addresses, they never reply. Humans generally have no problem in dealing with this though. There are of course ways to automatically whitelist certain addresses or domains, and you can view and manage the currently queued messages. All in all, a very nice tool and a worthy addition to the anti-spam armoury. - Keith
(Log in to post comments)
Sender confirmation Posted Jun 3, 2004 18:41 UTC (Thu) by Stephen_Beynon (✭ supporter ✭, #4090) [Link] I hate it when people use sender confirmation. As many spammers forgeemail from other "suckers" on there spam list I have in the past had ~100 requests to confirm spam I have never sent. That is to say nothing of the bounces generated by non-existant accounts.
Sender confirmation Posted Jun 3, 2004 20:06 UTC (Thu) by erwbgy (subscriber, #4104) [Link] If you used sender confirmation then you wouldn't have problems withother people using sender confirmation :-)
Sender confirmation Posted Jun 3, 2004 20:37 UTC (Thu) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] Challenge-Response considered harmful: http://www.linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html
Sender confirmation Posted Jun 7, 2004 17:46 UTC (Mon) by jae (guest, #2369) [Link] Challenge Response. Great.Needless to say, I might bother to reply, or I might not... most of the time I probably wouldn't...
|
|||||||||||||