Hidden dangers of bouncing spam

[Kevin Spicer]

 I just read something on the clamav list that got me thinking abut the
recent threads about bouncing spam and the reasons not to do it.  It
struck me that no-one brought up the hidden dangers of bouncing messages
to the apparent senders of spam.  Perhaps this will help to persuade
some of the doubters.  I'll let the original post speak for itself (this
was from a thread about ASK - the annoying challenge response 'spam
killer')

>We used to offer ASK here... until spammers started using spamcop's
spamtrap
>accounts in their return address.

>Spamcop didn't care that the messages were confirmations request.  They
just
>blacklisted us without notification.

Thats a pretty good reason not to bounce spam in my book.

-- 
Kevin Spicer (kevin AT kevinspicer DOT co DOT uk)

This message is digitally signed using the GNU Privacy Guard.  
My public key may be obtained from http://www.keyserver.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20040213/2add30d8/attachment.bin