Why not send spam back - ten-fold, maybe?
This may be naive but looking at this, the following just crossed my mind as a possible strike against spam - and as it seems it's not new (so hopefully not naive, either)
If every spam email was simply bounced back (maybe even ten-fold?), I would assume a spammer's environment - even if he would filter the anti-spam - would break down, or not?
If a spammer sends 100 messages and get's 10 back for each (9 of them could be "Your message is relayed" and #10 would be the bounce back), I'd think this could be pretty successful ... or not?
I find this idea very intriguing - am I missing anything? Or is this perhaps already done in many companies? I'm not into the spam stuff (as may be obvious from this post), so maybe someone who has experience with spam and anti-spam can elaborate?
If every spam email was simply bounced back (maybe even ten-fold?), I would assume a spammer's environment - even if he would filter the anti-spam - would break down, or not?
If a spammer sends 100 messages and get's 10 back for each (9 of them could be "Your message is relayed" and #10 would be the bounce back), I'd think this could be pretty successful ... or not?
I find this idea very intriguing - am I missing anything? Or is this perhaps already done in many companies? I'm not into the spam stuff (as may be obvious from this post), so maybe someone who has experience with spam and anti-spam can elaborate?
Comments
Turtle, 2008-03-30 03:15
Richard Schwartz, 2008-03-30 03:56
Sending stuff back will never actually hurt the spammer themselves, it would only hurt the wrong people unfortunately.
None of my systems send back any sort of notification. All that is doing is contributing to network traffic. :-(
-Grey
Greyhawk68, 2008-03-29 20:03
Florian Vogler, 2008-03-30 09:50