[DaGuy]

Is there a way to create a mail filter that will automatically bounce emails back to sender? Mail has the bounce button; it's not obvious to me, how to trigger that functionality from a filter.

No big deal If the emails bounce back to me, I have a filter that deletes bounced email.

Having a bounce to sender filter gives me a chance to annoy the spammers, to certain extent.

Thanks,

[JB72]

Well there is programs like this out there. Hope that helps in the battle vs. bad guys.

SpamCop

[CharlesS]

The thing I don't get (as I posted in the other thread) is, how can bouncing to the sender help when most spammers fake their return addresses? Does the server use some other means to bounce the mail back, or would this just end up annoying A. no one, if the e-mail is fake, or B. some hapless innocent person, if the spammer decides to put some real person (like someone who runs an anti-spam web site)'s e-mail address in the return address field?

[ShotgunEd]

yeh, spam is consuming enough resources without everyone pointlessly bouncing them back to the sender. If the sender is consciousless enough to send in the first place, a bit of bounced spam isn't going to deter them. Besides, can't they then just bounce it back to you?

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by ShotgunEd:
yeh, spam is consumingg enough resources without everyone pointlessly bouncing hem back to th sender. If the sender if consciousless enough to send in the first place, a bit of bounced spam isn't going to deter them. Besides, can't they then just bounce it back to you?

Well, if it actually bounced back to the real sender, then it would make it look like your e-mail address was invalid, causing them to delete it from their mailing list.

The thing I question is whether that bounceback will ever reach the actual sender of the e-mail.

[BTP]

Charles,

I completely understand what you are saying. I think it needs to be spelled out.

The following is for those that may not understand.

When spam gets sent to you, look at the sender's email address? Do you think it is real? Sexychick_0003@hotforu.com is a real address? Well, if you bounce a piece of spam, it's likely (99.999%) the address you'll be bouncing to ***IS FAKE**. That means you will be sending to a FAKE or NON-EXISTANT email address.

Why would you do this? I have no idea. If you do this then you are the type that believes that spammers send spam using their real email address. That probably means that you are immesurably naive and can afford to waste your time as you have nothing better to do. What will happen? In return for your efforts, you will in most cases get a bounce back, as the email you bounced was FAKE.

Folks, report spam via Spamcop or the like, but don't waste bandwidth using bounce. It is a COMPLETE WASTE of time. The feature works, it is not Mail.app's fault (or any mail app with that feature) but a flaw in that anyone can send email that appears to be from ayh address they want.

Please, don't waste your time. I hope this has helped someone.

Edit note: Only a server-side bounce will really work against a spammer. Also, they now generally don't even get their bounce, to don't rely on that.

[DaGuy]

People, people... Here are my thoughts:

LIMITED SATISFACTION
It's true that most of spammers use fake emails but not all. If I can hit two out of every ten spammers, then that would bring a warm sense of comfort. I'm just human.

HANDLING BOUNCES
The fact the eight out of every ten would bounce back, can be handled with ease. I have a filter that deletes all returned mail unless I've sent it. So I never see bounces. The end effect of this strategy is the same: I bounce the emails and never see them come back.

PHILOSOPHY AND NETWORK TRAFFIC
By increasing traffic with bounces we consume much bandwith, I agree. But I see this as a positive thing. If every spam message out there was bounced to its sender then (assuming ideal linear conditions) we would be generating double the ammount of traffic. This would encourage law makers to act quicker and ISPs to adapt better spam blocking techniques.

[Developer]

Originally posted by JB72:
Well there is programs like this out there. Hope that helps in the battle vs. bad guys.

SpamCop

I hate spamcop. I have now several times had people contact me, I reply, and my e-mail bounces back blocked by spamcop.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by DaGuy:
People, people... Here are my thoughts:

LIMITED SATISFACTION
It's true that most of spammers use fake emails but not all. If I can hit two out of every ten spammers, then that would bring a warm sense of comfort. I'm just human.

Well, consider this: Sometimes that e-mail address isn't fake, but it is the e-mail address of some innocent person, often someone who runs an anti-spam page. I did a mini research paper on this many years ago, and remember reading a story about some guy who ran an anti-spam site and was unlucky enough to have some spammer put his e-mail address in the return address field. In short order, his mail server was brought down by the torrent of e-mails from people who clicked "Reply" and sent nasty messages, naïvely assuming that the messages would go back to the sender. I've also looked at spams I've received and noticed an address like EndingSpam@some.isp.I.can't.remember.what.it.was.c om in the return-address field - wonder who that address might belong to? If not an anti-spam site, they could just pick some random e-mail address from their list, thinking it's funny.

Basically, if wasting your time isn't enough of a deterrent, just consider the fact that you may be harassing someone who had nothing to do with the spam. Oh, and I doubt that 2 out of 10, or even 2 out of 1000 spammers would put their real address in the return field. If they did that, their server would get swamped with flame mail, just like their victims...

[BTP]

2 out of 10? No way is that in the same universe as accurate.

More like 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000. Think of it this way. They send out 100's of thousands or even millions of pieces of spam. If they use their real address, they would be swamped with angry replies in no time at all.

Charles is right, spammers often 'joejob' people that they don't like, so when the email address is real, it STILL isn't the spammers.

[Freeflyer]

Originally posted by DaGuy:
People, people... Here are my thoughts:

HANDLING BOUNCES
The fact the eight out of every ten would bounce back, can be handled with ease. I have a filter that deletes all returned mail unless I've sent it. So I never see bounces. The end effect of this strategy is the same: I bounce the emails and never see them come back.

At risk of sounding stupid (nothing new there) could you tell me how you have that filter set up in mail. Sounds very useful, but I couldn't see quite how to get it working.

Thanks,

J.

[JB72]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Well, consider this: Sometimes that e-mail address isn't fake, but it is the e-mail address of some innocent person, often someone who runs an anti-spam page.

That's exactly why bouncing doesn't work. In fact having a fake return address is pretty much what differenciates between legit mass-mailing and spam (to a certain extent). There is not much one can do except check the full headers and do a proper report to the anti-spam organization of your choice. And of course use junk mail filters.

[JB72]

Originally posted by Developer:
I hate spamcop. I have now several times had people contact me, I reply, and my e-mail bounces back blocked by spamcop.

You might be falsely reported as spamming. You might want to head over there and see if you are "on their list."

[Developer]

Originally posted by JB72:
You might be falsely reported as spamming. You might want to head over there and see if you are "on their list."

I can't look it up, and I can't complain because my web hoster hosts 100 thousands of domains under the same IP address.

[Anomalous]

Originally posted by DaGuy:
Is there a way to create a mail filter that will automatically bounce emails back to sender? Mail has the bounce button; it's not obvious to me, how to trigger that functionality from a filter.

No big deal If the emails bounce back to me, I have a filter that deletes bounced email.

Having a bounce to sender filter gives me a chance to annoy the spammers, to certain extent.

Thanks,

I have been asking for this feature since OS X came out, but currently Mail still doesn't have it. Bouncing is of limited use anyway, but it can be helpful against people you don't like.

[DaGuy]

Originally posted by Freeflyer:
At risk of sounding stupid (nothing new there) could you tell me how you have that filter set up in mail. Sounds very useful, but I couldn't see quite how to get it working.

Thanks,

J.

If there's a straight forward way of doing this then I don't know it either. What I have is some ad-hoc filters. Constructing these, is just a matter of studying the headers for typical returned mail from both spammers and your own. Look for patterns; look for keywords phrases i.e., RETURNED-MAIL, ADDRESS NOT FOUND etc. You set one or more filters that delete these messages unless you are the sender. It's not perfect but you can tune it to your satisfaction.

[DaGuy]

Originally posted by JB72:
That's exactly why bouncing doesn't work. In fact having a fake return address is pretty much what differenciates between legit mass-mailing and spam (to a certain extent). There is not much one can do except check the full headers and do a proper report to the anti-spam organization of your choice. And of course use junk mail filters.

People, people... You have big hearts but think about it. If someone's email has been missappropriated by spammers then not only would they get my single bounce but hundreds of thousands of other ones since some spamming mailing lists are created by various algorithms. That poor person would be hosed with or without me. The spammer is the guilty party not the bouncer.

Still, I understand the moral dilema about bouncing emails but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be provided with the means to do it, if we wanted too.

Now get ready, If society can deal with firearms and provide choice then why not provide me with a nasty email bouncing filter?

[Terri]

I work in the adult industry and I can tell you that bouncing e-mails will get you removed from many of the shared lists and the more amateur spammers. Every little bit helps.

About once a week I select all my junk mail and hit bounce. Since I've been doing this my junk mail has gone way down.

The thing that really bugs me is all the Windows e-mail viruses that I get each day. They are hard to catch with the spam filters since they are all so different. Guess I'm lucky that I use a Mac.

[DaGuy]

So, adult industry, ah? I'm unemployed at present time, any work out there?



Anyway, you technique of massively bouncing emails is something I had not thought about. Good Tip, thanks.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by DaGuy:
People, people... You have big hearts but think about it. If someone's email has been missappropriated by spammers then not only would they get my single bounce but hundreds of thousands of other ones since some spamming mailing lists are created by various algorithms. That poor person would be hosed with or without me. The spammer is the guilty party not the bouncer.

And the reason that guy is hosed will be because of you and other people that have the same attitude.

It's like voting. "Mine doesn't count!" etc.

To repeat: Spammers almost always use fake return addresses. Bouncing to the fake address will at best go nowhere and at worst go to some innocent party. In either case, you will be exacerbating the bandwidth problem that spam already generates.

[Terri]

Originally posted by DaGuy:
Anyway, you technique of massively bouncing emails is something I had not thought about. Good Tip, thanks.

It seems to work pretty well. I do get a few dozen of the can't send bounce e-mails back each time, but that is not bad since I usually have over a thousand in my junk mail box each time. Not a big deal to just delete those.

[DaGuy]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
And the reason that guy is hosed will be because of you and other people that have the same attitude.

It's like voting. "Mine doesn't count!" etc.

To repeat: Spammers almost always use fake return addresses. Bouncing to the fake address will at best go nowhere and at worst go to some innocent party. In either case, you will be exacerbating the bandwidth problem that spam already generates.

Exactly voting is about CHOICE!!!

For sake of argument, assume that the spam list is generated by combinatorial algorithms. Also assume that no one with a valid email bounces the spam. Can you explain what happens when the nonexistent emails start bouncing back? With our without anyone bouncing the spam the poor person would be hosed anyways.

Now, believe I understand the moral dilema but there's nothing wrong with having a choice.

I already covered the network traffic issue, in a prior post.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by DaGuy:
Exactly voting is about CHOICE!!!

It's like voting in the sense that you could vote for a particular candidate, and then when that wins and ends up sucking big time, someone blamed you for that candidate winning, you could say "It doesn't matter, enough people voted for him that he would have won with or without my vote anyway."

I already covered the network traffic issue, in a prior post.

In a really inane manner. "We'll clog up the net bad enough that lawmakers will finally do something!" Yeah, right.

Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere fast, and I'm tiring of it rapidly. If, even knowing that your actions only cause harm and not good, you want to continue on doing this and making things worse for everyone, go right ahead.

[DaGuy]

You're a good man CharlesS.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Freeflyer]

Originally posted by DaGuy:
If there's a straight forward way of doing this then I don't know it either. What I have is some ad-hoc filters. Constructing these, is just a matter of studying the headers for typical returned mail from both spammers and your own. Look for patterns; look for keywords phrases i.e., RETURNED-MAIL, ADDRESS NOT FOUND etc. You set one or more filters that delete these messages unless you are the sender. It's not perfect but you can tune it to your satisfaction.

Thanks, I thought you might have found a simple option that I had missed. I'll look through mine and see how I get on.

Cheers,

J.

[::maroma::]

Check out the latest Macworld (April). There is a large article on Spam and how to combat it. I haven't read it, so I don't know if it's good or not.

[CharlesS]

If you want to get stupid/newbie spammers, why not just send a message to their "remove list" with your return address set to abuse@localhost ?

[schalliol]

abuse at the address is only a semi-standard. I believe anyone can report to spamcop. Spamcop will go through the headers and attempt to track where the emails came from and who the sites they reference are being hosted by. Then they have a database of actual admins, some are abuse@domain.com, but others are some other thing.

I went from 100 spam emails a day to only a few. I now have a Eudora script that helps automate the reporting process to them if one slides through. Plus with spamcop, email goes into a held section where you can review it before sending a report of failure. You must blame users who report what you send as spam. With SpamCop you get the report in an email if you like too.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by schalliol:
abuse at the address is only a semi-standard. I believe anyone can report to spamcop. Spamcop will go through the headers and attempt to track where the emails came from and who the sites they reference are being hosted by. Then they have a database of actual admins, some are abuse@domain.com, but others are some other thing.

I went from 100 spam emails a day to only a few. I now have a Eudora script that helps automate the reporting process to them if one slides through. Plus with spamcop, email goes into a held section where you can review it before sending a report of failure. You must blame users who report what you send as spam. With SpamCop you get the report in an email if you like too.

I was kind of kidding... but thanks.