Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , Jane Ransom
writes Nope . . . . you are WRONG. After bouncing the mails that came to us after my husband's little lapse, WE DO NOT RECEIVE ANY SPAM on that mailbox. Most spam that I've seen has forged return addresses, i.e. the bounce message will not reach the perpetrator. However, I've seen it said that a lot of spam nowadays has web bugs in it. (The archetypal web bug is a one pixel GIF image.) Given this, it is plausible that if spam to an address is not read (bounced or deleted unread) or read in such a fashion that embedded, remote, images are not accessed, that the address will be recognised as not active and removed from the spammer's list. However, an email address that I used for one mailing list escaped into the wild towards the beginning of this year (I think a virus infection caused a participant to spew his address book across the net - it occurred at the same time as a virus storm). I'm still getting spam to that address, even tho' it's been bounced for months. Bouncing the mails appears to have worked for you in this instance, but it would seem to be an unwarranted assumption to conclude that it works as a general rule. -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Even chickens get a better life under new animal laws | United Kingdom | |||
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER | Ponds | |||
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER | Ponds | |||
Monsanto Uses Canadian Taxpayer Money to Violate Foreign Laws Case highlights need for strong Biosaf | Gardening | |||
Messy laws | Gardening |