I run Xp outlook SP3 and would like to "Bounce" (return) certain mail --
automatically back to the sender. Can this be done ?
david

David wrote:

> I run Xp outlook SP3 and would like to "Bounce" (return) certain mail --
> automatically back to the sender. Can this be done ?
> david

Fake bounces are considered deliberate backscatter and are reportable as
spam. Expect to get added to public and private blacklists as a spam
source.

YOU have no guaranteed information in a received e-mail as to who was the
true sender of an e-mail. The only time the true sender is known is DURING
the mail session between sending and receiving mail hosts (and then the
receiving mail host only knows the host that connected to it, not the actual
sender that used that host, so it issues a rejection or failure and lets the
sending mail host decide who was the actual sender). You cannot guarantee
that you deliver your fake bounce to the correct recipient. Since you are
probably talking about spam and where spammers NEVER divulge their real
e-mail address, all your fake bounces will afflict innocents who never had
anything to do with that spam e-mail. That also means those recipients can
report your abuse to your e-mail provider and get your account locked or
closed.

Only boobs that have no concept of how the e-mail system works thinks they
are punishing spammers with their fake bounces. Instead they afflict
innocents with their "bounce spam" and generate superfluous and ineffective
backscatter on the mail servers. As such, users of fake bounces are *part*
of the spam problem, not a solution to it. If you act like an irresponsible
e-mail user, expect to get treated similarly to a spammer!

.... and more ... (from my canned reply)

The bounce feature in any e-mail client is very stupid and irresponsible
primarily because ignorant users will actually believe the software author
is providing an appropriate feature and that it will somehow it will avoid
further spam. Spammers do not use their own e-mail address. Instead they use
a bogus one (which may be a valid e-mail address for some user) or they use
one that they've already stolen and is often included in the recipient list
of e-mail addresses. Spammers change their e-mails every time they spew so
blocking on the one they used last time won't eliminate getting their crap
when they next spew. Spammers rely on the ignorance of e-mail users that
believe using blacklists and/or bouncing by the sender's claimed e-mail
address has any effect on reducing received spam.

- Blocking by the sender's e-mail will NOT eliminate spam in your mailbox.
The spammer's e-mail address changes at their will.

- Bouncing based on the return-path headers in an e-mail will NEVER hit the
spammer. Only boobs think the spammer will identify themself.

YOU are not connected during the mail session between the sending and
receiving mail servers so you have absolutely no means to guarantee of
knowing from the return-path headers (e.g., From or Reply-To) as to who sent
you. The sender can put anything they want in there. Even mail servers that
first accept a message, end the mail session with the sending mail host, and
then check afterward if the e-mail address is valid or not and then try to
send a *new* message back to the sender will get it wrong. If a valid IP
address of the sender is included in a Received header, that does NOT
provide you with an e-mail address to which you can bounce back their spam.
You cannot rely on the return-path headers to guarantee identifying the true
sender. These bounces are sent blind!

The spammer isn't going to identify themself to receive that bounce. Now
consider that only aren't you the receiving mail server but you are even
further removed from the mail session between the sending and receiving mail
hosts. There is nothing in your e-mail client that can absolutely guarantee
who is the sender of the spam you got in your Inbox, so bouncing it anywhere
means wasting bandwidth for you to send the bounce, disk space and
bandwidtch by your mail server to attempt to deliver your bounce, disk space
and CPU cycles for the receiving mail host to accept your bogus bounce mail,
and some innocent getting slapped with your misdirected bounce (which, by
the way, can be reported to blacklists as backscatter and get you
blacklisted).

Think about it for all of 10 seconds, if even that long. Would you like to
be the victim of a "mail bombing" because some spammer usurped your e-mail
address, sends out a million copies of their crap with you identified as the
sender, and then all those boobs using e-mail clients with a bounce option
end up filling your mailbox with all their misdirected bounces?

Any e-mail client that provides a bounce option are irresponsible software
authors. Ignorant users sending misdirected bounces are irresponsible
e-mail users. Have a read at:

http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-...atter-fake.htm
http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-backscatter.htm

Warning: If you send me backscatter, like misdirected bounces which to me
are unsolicited and hence spam, I will report you to blacklists, like at
SpamCop, for your irresponsible and ignorant use of flawed anti-spam
schemes. If you punish me with your backscatter, I will punish you! I'm not
the only one with this attitude. There are plenty of spam reporters out
there, and they'll report your fake bounces, too. It is not up to the rest
of us to placate your sensitivity for your spam problem by being your
victim. Get a responsible anti-spam solution.

Vanguard, thankyou for your reply.
However you have used a sledgehammer to a simple problem, but the fault is
not yours, I did not go into details, I should have .
A certain person sends me email, that I do not want, I don't want to hear
further from them.
Yes I can use a delete rule, but I would simply like to gently return their
email, hoping that they will get the message.
Can I use a forward on rule -- back to the sender, this is without getting
on black/white/or whatever lists.
I am a very ordinary guy (Old), not a spammer.
David

"VanguardLH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hiej3e$2i6$(E-Mail Removed)...
> David wrote:
>
>> I run Xp outlook SP3 and would like to "Bounce" (return) certain mail --
>> automatically back to the sender. Can this be done ?
>> david
>
> Fake bounces are considered deliberate backscatter and are reportable as
> spam. Expect to get added to public and private blacklists as a spam
> source.
>
> YOU have no guaranteed information in a received e-mail as to who was the
> true sender of an e-mail. The only time the true sender is known is
> DURING
> the mail session between sending and receiving mail hosts (and then the
> receiving mail host only knows the host that connected to it, not the
> actual
> sender that used that host, so it issues a rejection or failure and lets
> the
> sending mail host decide who was the actual sender). You cannot guarantee
> that you deliver your fake bounce to the correct recipient. Since you are
> probably talking about spam and where spammers NEVER divulge their real
> e-mail address, all your fake bounces will afflict innocents who never had
> anything to do with that spam e-mail. That also means those recipients
> can
> report your abuse to your e-mail provider and get your account locked or
> closed.
>
> Only boobs that have no concept of how the e-mail system works thinks they
> are punishing spammers with their fake bounces. Instead they afflict
> innocents with their "bounce spam" and generate superfluous and
> ineffective
> backscatter on the mail servers. As such, users of fake bounces are
> *part*
> of the spam problem, not a solution to it. If you act like an
> irresponsible
> e-mail user, expect to get treated similarly to a spammer!
>
> ... and more ... (from my canned reply)
>
> The bounce feature in any e-mail client is very stupid and irresponsible
> primarily because ignorant users will actually believe the software author
> is providing an appropriate feature and that it will somehow it will avoid
> further spam. Spammers do not use their own e-mail address. Instead they
> use
> a bogus one (which may be a valid e-mail address for some user) or they
> use
> one that they've already stolen and is often included in the recipient
> list
> of e-mail addresses. Spammers change their e-mails every time they spew so
> blocking on the one they used last time won't eliminate getting their crap
> when they next spew. Spammers rely on the ignorance of e-mail users that
> believe using blacklists and/or bouncing by the sender's claimed e-mail
> address has any effect on reducing received spam.
>
> - Blocking by the sender's e-mail will NOT eliminate spam in your mailbox.
> The spammer's e-mail address changes at their will.
>
> - Bouncing based on the return-path headers in an e-mail will NEVER hit
> the
> spammer. Only boobs think the spammer will identify themself.
>
> YOU are not connected during the mail session between the sending and
> receiving mail servers so you have absolutely no means to guarantee of
> knowing from the return-path headers (e.g., From or Reply-To) as to who
> sent
> you. The sender can put anything they want in there. Even mail servers
> that
> first accept a message, end the mail session with the sending mail host,
> and
> then check afterward if the e-mail address is valid or not and then try to
> send a *new* message back to the sender will get it wrong. If a valid IP
> address of the sender is included in a Received header, that does NOT
> provide you with an e-mail address to which you can bounce back their
> spam.
> You cannot rely on the return-path headers to guarantee identifying the
> true
> sender. These bounces are sent blind!
>
> The spammer isn't going to identify themself to receive that bounce. Now
> consider that only aren't you the receiving mail server but you are even
> further removed from the mail session between the sending and receiving
> mail
> hosts. There is nothing in your e-mail client that can absolutely
> guarantee
> who is the sender of the spam you got in your Inbox, so bouncing it
> anywhere
> means wasting bandwidth for you to send the bounce, disk space and
> bandwidtch by your mail server to attempt to deliver your bounce, disk
> space
> and CPU cycles for the receiving mail host to accept your bogus bounce
> mail,
> and some innocent getting slapped with your misdirected bounce (which, by
> the way, can be reported to blacklists as backscatter and get you
> blacklisted).
>
> Think about it for all of 10 seconds, if even that long. Would you like
> to
> be the victim of a "mail bombing" because some spammer usurped your e-mail
> address, sends out a million copies of their crap with you identified as
> the
> sender, and then all those boobs using e-mail clients with a bounce option
> end up filling your mailbox with all their misdirected bounces?
>
> Any e-mail client that provides a bounce option are irresponsible software
> authors. Ignorant users sending misdirected bounces are irresponsible
> e-mail users. Have a read at:
>
> http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-...atter-fake.htm
> http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-backscatter.htm
>
> Warning: If you send me backscatter, like misdirected bounces which to me
> are unsolicited and hence spam, I will report you to blacklists, like at
> SpamCop, for your irresponsible and ignorant use of flawed anti-spam
> schemes. If you punish me with your backscatter, I will punish you! I'm
> not
> the only one with this attitude. There are plenty of spam reporters out
> there, and they'll report your fake bounces, too. It is not up to the
> rest
> of us to placate your sensitivity for your spam problem by being your
> victim. Get a responsible anti-spam solution.

David wrote:

> Vanguard, thankyou for your reply.
> However you have used a sledgehammer to a simple problem, but the fault is
> not yours, I did not go into details, I should have .
> A certain person sends me email, that I do not want, I don't want to hear
> further from them.
> Yes I can use a delete rule, but I would simply like to gently return their
> email, hoping that they will get the message.
> Can I use a forward on rule -- back to the sender, this is without getting
> on black/white/or whatever lists.
> I am a very ordinary guy (Old), not a spammer.

Yet your action of sending a fake bounce is what can get you into trouble.
If this person is so rude as to ignore your requests to stop sending you
their e-mails, what makes you think they might not be malicious and report
your fake bounce as backscatter to your e-mail provider to get your account
closed? You claimed in your first post that you wanted to issue a fake
bounce. That is NOT the same as sending a reply using a template to a
specific sender.

You could waste your resources to reply to every one of their emails but
then how does that make you better than them? They spew so you spew. Yeah,
like that's the action of a responsible e-mail user, uh huh. To onlookers,
you look like children yelling "Oh yeah" at each other. Neither party is
reading those e-mails and each are wasting both bandwidth and disk space on
each other's end and at the mail servers. They waste resources so what's
your reaction? To waste even more resources. If they refuse to honor your
first request to desist in them e-mailing you, they aren't going to care
about your constant needling them with fake bounces or templated replies.
Most likely they already figured out how your block or blacklist your
e-mails and don't even see them. They'll just keep sending their unwanted
e-mails and then you auto-send your e-mail back to them but which they may
not even see. They probably already did what you should.

If you're not willing to add them to the Blocked Senders list or to define a
blacklist rule that includes their e-mail address (and any others that you
add) to delete their e-mails (rather than move them into the Junk folder)
then why are you willing to define a rule to issue a fake bounce? The same
rule you define to auto-reply to that sender is the nearly the same rule
that you could make into a blacklist rule to auto-delete any e-mails from
that e-mail address.

Vanguard, I thankyou again for your reply.

Mate you have lost me. You are misreading the tale, totally.
I can understand that people such as yourself go overboard about spam, well
good on you for helping to protect us from the spammers, the nigerians, etc.
When I use the word "Bounce" as in bounce back, I am not trying to turn back
a flood of unwanted email. I use a good Australianism "Bounce it back,
return it, etc". A certain person who's mail I no longer wish to receive,
well I would simply like to return their mail automatically, so as to give
them the idea, all without, I repeat, all without loud tongue lashings,
stamping of the feet, bad language, tamptrims, and all that type of uncalled
behaviour in this case.

Van, kindly do not reply further to this query as I am certain you have
nothing to add for my benefit. Thankyou.

David

"VanguardLH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hiemb8$7h9$(E-Mail Removed)...
> David wrote:
>
>> Vanguard, thankyou for your reply.
>> However you have used a sledgehammer to a simple problem, but the fault
>> is
>> not yours, I did not go into details, I should have .
>> A certain person sends me email, that I do not want, I don't want to hear
>> further from them.
>> Yes I can use a delete rule, but I would simply like to gently return
>> their
>> email, hoping that they will get the message.
>> Can I use a forward on rule -- back to the sender, this is without
>> getting
>> on black/white/or whatever lists.
>> I am a very ordinary guy (Old), not a spammer.
>
> Yet your action of sending a fake bounce is what can get you into trouble.
> If this person is so rude as to ignore your requests to stop sending you
> their e-mails, what makes you think they might not be malicious and report
> your fake bounce as backscatter to your e-mail provider to get your
> account
> closed? You claimed in your first post that you wanted to issue a fake
> bounce. That is NOT the same as sending a reply using a template to a
> specific sender.
>
> You could waste your resources to reply to every one of their emails but
> then how does that make you better than them? They spew so you spew.
> Yeah,
> like that's the action of a responsible e-mail user, uh huh. To
> onlookers,
> you look like children yelling "Oh yeah" at each other. Neither party is
> reading those e-mails and each are wasting both bandwidth and disk space
> on
> each other's end and at the mail servers. They waste resources so what's
> your reaction? To waste even more resources. If they refuse to honor
> your
> first request to desist in them e-mailing you, they aren't going to care
> about your constant needling them with fake bounces or templated replies.
> Most likely they already figured out how your block or blacklist your
> e-mails and don't even see them. They'll just keep sending their unwanted
> e-mails and then you auto-send your e-mail back to them but which they may
> not even see. They probably already did what you should.
>
> If you're not willing to add them to the Blocked Senders list or to define
> a
> blacklist rule that includes their e-mail address (and any others that you
> add) to delete their e-mails (rather than move them into the Junk folder)
> then why are you willing to define a rule to issue a fake bounce? The
> same
> rule you define to auto-reply to that sender is the nearly the same rule
> that you could make into a blacklist rule to auto-delete any e-mails from
> that e-mail address.

David wrote:

> Vanguard, I thankyou again for your reply.
>
> Mate you have lost me. You are misreading the tale, totally.
> I can understand that people such as yourself go overboard about spam, well
> good on you for helping to protect us from the spammers, the nigerians, etc.
> When I use the word "Bounce" as in bounce back, I am not trying to turn back
> a flood of unwanted email. I use a good Australianism "Bounce it back,
> return it, etc". A certain person who's mail I no longer wish to receive,
> well I would simply like to return their mail automatically, so as to give
> them the idea, all without, I repeat, all without loud tongue lashings,
> stamping of the feet, bad language, tamptrims, and all that type of uncalled
> behaviour in this case.
>
> Van, kindly do not reply further to this query as I am certain you have
> nothing to add for my benefit. Thankyou.

One e-mail is all it takes to notify the sender that you don't want their
e-mails. If they don't comply with your polite request, you repeatedly
sending them an e-mail in a vain attempt to pester them into submission is
just you nagging at them (but which they probably never see) but having that
nagging done automatically for you and wasting resources on an ineffective
scheme.

Ask them to desist and blacklist if they don't comply. Going beyond that is
NOT you being the subdued victim you wish to portray. Passive means solving
the problem on your end. You intend to be aggressive. Your intended
aggressive and almost abusive reaction is not cloaked by your portrayal of
yourself as the victim.

Flush the turds floating in your own toilet. Don't bother mailing them to
your friend who you allowed into your house and to dump in your toilet. If
you don't want your friend dumping in your toilet, don't let them into your
house.

See http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/autoreply_spam.htm

Assuming this is a real person and not a spammer or bulk mailer - Instead of
pretending to "bounce" their mail - send them one reply and one reply only,
telling them to stop sending you mail and that in the future, all mail will
be deleted unread. If your ISP has webmail and you can set up delete rules
online, set up a rule to delete their mail on the server as soon as it
arrives. Otherwise, set Outlook to delete it.

Do not use rules to autoreply to every message they send. It's not worth the
effort.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com/

Outlook Tips by email:
mailto:dailytips-subscribe-(E-Mail Removed)

EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange:
mailto:EMO-NEWSLETTER-SUBSCRIBE-(E-Mail Removed)

Poll: What version of Exchange server do you use?
http://forums.slipstick.com/showthread.php?t=33803

"David" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:PxA2n.697$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Vanguard, thankyou for your reply.
> However you have used a sledgehammer to a simple problem, but the fault is
> not yours, I did not go into details, I should have .
> A certain person sends me email, that I do not want, I don't want to hear
> further from them.
> Yes I can use a delete rule, but I would simply like to gently return
> their email, hoping that they will get the message.
> Can I use a forward on rule -- back to the sender, this is without getting
> on black/white/or whatever lists.
> I am a very ordinary guy (Old), not a spammer.
> David
>

In message <IXB2n.715$(E-Mail Removed)> "David"
<(E-Mail Removed)> was claimed to have wrote:

>When I use the word "Bounce" as in bounce back, I am not trying to turn back
>a flood of unwanted email. I use a good Australianism "Bounce it back,
>return it, etc". A certain person who's mail I no longer wish to receive,
>well I would simply like to return their mail automatically, so as to give
>them the idea, all without, I repeat, all without loud tongue lashings,
>stamping of the feet, bad language, tamptrims, and all that type of uncalled
>behaviour in this case.

Ctrl-R, type "I don't wish to hear from you again, thanks for your time"
and then Ctrl-Enter.

Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote:

> See http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/autoreply_spam.htm
>
> Assuming this is a real person and not a spammer or bulk mailer - Instead of
> pretending to "bounce" their mail - send them one reply and one reply only,
> telling them to stop sending you mail and that in the future, all mail will
> be deleted unread. If your ISP has webmail and you can set up delete rules
> online, set up a rule to delete their mail on the server as soon as it
> arrives. Otherwise, set Outlook to delete it.
>
> Do not use rules to autoreply to every message they send. It's not worth the
> effort.

David doesn't want a sane solution.
David doesn't want to be polite.
David wants to punish.

David, as an owner of a number of domains, the only way I find out my domains are being spoofed is through replies such as fake bounces, out-of-office and other autoreplies, and authentication requests. This is a good thing. I'd rather know my domains were being spoofed than remain ignorant that they were being used and what is being presented as part of my business.

What would be nice would be to get full headers so I can track the e-mail either to report it or for other purposes. With this ability, companies would be in position to sue spammers for spoofing them. That's all good for minimizing spam.

Further, if someone spams a spoofed address, you'll get real bounces as well as fake ones. It's ridiculous to report these as spam.

Also note that not all spam addresses are spoofed. Oftentimes spam is sent from a real, temporary address to confirm addresses by seeing which bounce. Lists of confirmed addresses sell for more among spammers. This isn't true of most spam, but it is out there.

A reporting feature for spam would be more useful than a fake bounce feature, but both have their place.



VanguardLH wrote:

David wrote:Fake bounces are considered deliberate backscatter and are
11-Jan-10

David wrote

Fake bounces are considered deliberate backscatter and are reportable a
spam. Expect to get added to public and private blacklists as a spa
source

YOU have no guaranteed information in a received e-mail as to who was th
true sender of an e-mail. The only time the true sender is known is DURIN
the mail session between sending and receiving mail hosts (and then th
receiving mail host only knows the host that connected to it, not the actua
sender that used that host, so it issues a rejection or failure and lets th
sending mail host decide who was the actual sender). You cannot guarante
that you deliver your fake bounce to the correct recipient. Since you ar
probably talking about spam and where spammers NEVER divulge their rea
e-mail address, all your fake bounces will afflict innocents who never ha
anything to do with that spam e-mail. That also means those recipients ca
report your abuse to your e-mail provider and get your account locked o
closed

Only boobs that have no concept of how the e-mail system works thinks the
are punishing spammers with their fake bounces. Instead they afflic
innocents with their "bounce spam" and generate superfluous and ineffectiv
backscatter on the mail servers. As such, users of fake bounces are *part
of the spam problem, not a solution to it. If you act like an irresponsibl
e-mail user, expect to get treated similarly to a spammer

.... and more ... (from my canned reply

The bounce feature in any e-mail client is very stupid and irresponsibl
primarily because ignorant users will actually believe the software autho
is providing an appropriate feature and that it will somehow it will avoi
further spam. Spammers do not use their own e-mail address. Instead they us
a bogus one (which may be a valid e-mail address for some user) or they us
one that they have already stolen and is often included in the recipient lis
of e-mail addresses. Spammers change their e-mails every time they spew s
blocking on the one they used last time will not eliminate getting their cra
when they next spew. Spammers rely on the ignorance of e-mail users tha
believe using blacklists and/or bouncing by the sender's claimed e-mai
address has any effect on reducing received spam

- Blocking by the sender's e-mail will NOT eliminate spam in your mailbox
The spammer's e-mail address changes at their will

- Bouncing based on the return-path headers in an e-mail will NEVER hit th
spammer. Only boobs think the spammer will identify themself

YOU are not connected during the mail session between the sending an
receiving mail servers so you have absolutely no means to guarantee o
knowing from the return-path headers (e.g., From or Reply-To) as to who sen
you. The sender can put anything they want in there. Even mail servers tha
first accept a message, end the mail session with the sending mail host, an
then check afterward if the e-mail address is valid or not and then try to
send a *new* message back to the sender will get it wrong. If a valid IP
address of the sender is included in a Received header, that does NOT
provide you with an e-mail address to which you can bounce back their spam.
You cannot rely on the return-path headers to guarantee identifying the true
sender. These bounces are sent blind!

The spammer is not going to identify themself to receive that bounce. Now
consider that only are not you the receiving mail server but you are even
further removed from the mail session between the sending and receiving mail
hosts. There is nothing in your e-mail client that can absolutely guarantee
who is the sender of the spam you got in your Inbox, so bouncing it anywhere
means wasting bandwidth for you to send the bounce, disk space and
bandwidtch by your mail server to attempt to deliver your bounce, disk space
and CPU cycles for the receiving mail host to accept your bogus bounce mail,
and some innocent getting slapped with your misdirected bounce (which, by
the way, can be reported to blacklists as backscatter and get you
blacklisted).

Think about it for all of 10 seconds, if even that long. Would you like to
be the victim of a "mail bombing" because some spammer usurped your e-mail
address, sends out a million copies of their crap with you identified as the
sender, and then all those boobs using e-mail clients with a bounce option
end up filling your mailbox with all their misdirected bounces?

Any e-mail client that provides a bounce option are irresponsible software
authors. Ignorant users sending misdirected bounces are irresponsible
e-mail users. Have a read at:

http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-...atter-fake.htm
http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-backscatter.htm

Warning: If you send me backscatter, like misdirected bounces which to me
are unsolicited and hence spam, I will report you to blacklists, like at
SpamCop, for your irresponsible and ignorant use of flawed anti-spam
schemes. If you punish me with your backscatter, I will punish you! I am not
the only one with this attitude. There are plenty of spam reporters out
there, and they will report your fake bounces, too. It is not up to the rest
of us to placate your sensitivity for your spam problem by being your
victim. Get a responsible anti-spam solution.

Previous Posts In This Thread:

On Monday, January 11, 2010 1:59 AM
David wrote:

How to Bounce mail
I run Xp outlook SP3 and would like to "Bounce" (return) certain mail --
automatically back to the sender. Can this be done ?
david

On Monday, January 11, 2010 2:13 AM
VanguardLH wrote:

David wrote:Fake bounces are considered deliberate backscatter and are
David wrote:


Fake bounces are considered deliberate backscatter and are reportable as
spam. Expect to get added to public and private blacklists as a spam
source.

YOU have no guaranteed information in a received e-mail as to who was the
true sender of an e-mail. The only time the true sender is known is DURING
the mail session between sending and receiving mail hosts (and then the
receiving mail host only knows the host that connected to it, not the actual
sender that used that host, so it issues a rejection or failure and lets the
sending mail host decide who was the actual sender). You cannot guarantee
that you deliver your fake bounce to the correct recipient. Since you are
probably talking about spam and where spammers NEVER divulge their real
e-mail address, all your fake bounces will afflict innocents who never had
anything to do with that spam e-mail. That also means those recipients can
report your abuse to your e-mail provider and get your account locked or
closed.

Only boobs that have no concept of how the e-mail system works thinks they
are punishing spammers with their fake bounces. Instead they afflict
innocents with their "bounce spam" and generate superfluous and ineffective
backscatter on the mail servers. As such, users of fake bounces are *part*
of the spam problem, not a solution to it. If you act like an irresponsible
e-mail user, expect to get treated similarly to a spammer!

.... and more ... (from my canned reply)

The bounce feature in any e-mail client is very stupid and irresponsible
primarily because ignorant users will actually believe the software author
is providing an appropriate feature and that it will somehow it will avoid
further spam. Spammers do not use their own e-mail address. Instead they use
a bogus one (which may be a valid e-mail address for some user) or they use
one that they have already stolen and is often included in the recipient list
of e-mail addresses. Spammers change their e-mails every time they spew so
blocking on the one they used last time will not eliminate getting their crap
when they next spew. Spammers rely on the ignorance of e-mail users that
believe using blacklists and/or bouncing by the sender's claimed e-mail
address has any effect on reducing received spam.

- Blocking by the sender's e-mail will NOT eliminate spam in your mailbox.
The spammer's e-mail address changes at their will.

- Bouncing based on the return-path headers in an e-mail will NEVER hit the
spammer. Only boobs think the spammer will identify themself.

YOU are not connected during the mail session between the sending an
receiving mail servers so you have absolutely no means to guarantee o
knowing from the return-path headers (e.g., From or Reply-To) as to who sen
you. The sender can put anything they want in there. Even mail servers tha
first accept a message, end the mail session with the sending mail host, an
then check afterward if the e-mail address is valid or not and then try t
send a *new* message back to the sender will get it wrong. If a valid I
address of the sender is included in a Received header, that does NO
provide you with an e-mail address to which you can bounce back their spam
You cannot rely on the return-path headers to guarantee identifying the tru
sender. These bounces are sent blind

The spammer is not going to identify themself to receive that bounce. No
consider that only are not you the receiving mail server but you are eve
further removed from the mail session between the sending and receiving mai
hosts. There is nothing in your e-mail client that can absolutely guarante
who is the sender of the spam you got in your Inbox, so bouncing it anywher
means wasting bandwidth for you to send the bounce, disk space an
bandwidtch by your mail server to attempt to deliver your bounce, disk spac
and CPU cycles for the receiving mail host to accept your bogus bounce mail
and some innocent getting slapped with your misdirected bounce (which, b
the way, can be reported to blacklists as backscatter and get yo
blacklisted)

Think about it for all of 10 seconds, if even that long. Would you like t
be the victim of a "mail bombing" because some spammer usurped your e-mai
address, sends out a million copies of their crap with you identified as th
sender, and then all those boobs using e-mail clients with a bounce optio
end up filling your mailbox with all their misdirected bounces

Any e-mail client that provides a bounce option are irresponsible softwar
authors. Ignorant users sending misdirected bounces are irresponsibl
e-mail users. Have a read at

http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-backscatter-fake.ht
http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-backscatter.ht

Warning: If you send me backscatter, like misdirected bounces which to m
are unsolicited and hence spam, I will report you to blacklists, like a
SpamCop, for your irresponsible and ignorant use of flawed anti-spa
schemes. If you punish me with your backscatter, I will punish you! I am no
the only one with this attitude. There are plenty of spam reporters ou
there, and they will report your fake bounces, too. It is not up to the res
of us to placate your sensitivity for your spam problem by being you
victim. Get a responsible anti-spam solution.

On Monday, January 11, 2010 2:36 AM
David wrote:

Vanguard, thankyou for your reply.
Vanguard, thankyou for your reply
However you have used a sledgehammer to a simple problem, but the fault i
not yours, I did not go into details, I should have
A certain person sends me email, that I do not want, I do not want to hea
further from them
Yes I can use a delete rule, but I would simply like to gently return thei
email, hoping that they will get the message
Can I use a forward on rule -- back to the sender, this is without gettin
on black/white/or whatever lists
I am a very ordinary guy (Old), not a spammer
David

On Monday, January 11, 2010 3:09 AM
VanguardLH wrote:

David wrote:Yet your action of sending a fake bounce is what can get you into
David wrote

Yet your action of sending a fake bounce is what can get you into trouble
If this person is so rude as to ignore your requests to stop sending yo
their e-mails, what makes you think they might not be malicious and repor
your fake bounce as backscatter to your e-mail provider to get your accoun
closed? You claimed in your first post that you wanted to issue a fak
bounce. That is NOT the same as sending a reply using a template to
specific sender

You could waste your resources to reply to every one of their emails bu
then how does that make you better than them? They spew so you spew. Yeah
like that is the action of a responsible e-mail user, uh huh. To onlookers,
you look like children yelling "Oh yeah" at each other. Neither party is
reading those e-mails and each are wasting both bandwidth and disk space on
each other's end and at the mail servers. They waste resources so what is
your reaction? To waste even more resources. If they refuse to honor your
first request to desist in them e-mailing you, they are not going to care
about your constant needling them with fake bounces or templated replies.
Most likely they already figured out how your block or blacklist your
e-mails and do not even see them. They'll just keep sending their unwanted
e-mails and then you auto-send your e-mail back to them but which they may
not even see. They probably already did what you should.

If you are not willing to add them to the Blocked Senders list or to define a
blacklist rule that includes their e-mail address (and any others that you
add) to delete their e-mails (rather than move them into the Junk folder)
then why are you willing to define a rule to issue a fake bounce? The same
rule you define to auto-reply to that sender is the nearly the same rule
that you could make into a blacklist rule to auto-delete any e-mails from
that e-mail address.

On Monday, January 11, 2010 4:12 AM
David wrote:

Vanguard, I thankyou again for your reply.Mate you have lost me.
Vanguard, I thankyou again for your reply.

Mate you have lost me. You are misreading the tale, totally.
I can understand that people such as yourself go overboard about spam, well
good on you for helping to protect us from the spammers, the nigerians, etc.
When I use the word "Bounce" as in bounce back, I am not trying to turn back
a flood of unwanted email. I use a good Australianism "Bounce it back,
return it, etc". A certain person who is mail I no longer wish to receive,
well I would simply like to return their mail automatically, so as to give
them the idea, all without, I repeat, all without loud tongue lashings,
stamping of the feet, bad language, tamptrims, and all that type of uncalled
behaviour in this case.

Van, kindly do not reply further to this query as I am certain you have
nothing to add for my benefit. Thankyou.

David

On Monday, January 11, 2010 5:10 AM
VanguardLH wrote:

David wrote:One e-mail is all it takes to notify the sender that you do not
David wrote:


One e-mail is all it takes to notify the sender that you do not want their
e-mails. If they do not comply with your polite request, you repeatedly
sending them an e-mail in a vain attempt to pester them into submission is
just you nagging at them (but which they probably never see) but having that
nagging done automatically for you and wasting resources on an ineffective
scheme.

Ask them to desist and blacklist if they do not comply. Going beyond that is
NOT you being the subdued victim you wish to portray. Passive means solving
the problem on your end. You intend to be aggressive. Your intended
aggressive and almost abusive reaction is not cloaked by your portrayal of
yourself as the victim.

Flush the turds floating in your own toilet. Don't bother mailing them to
your friend who you allowed into your house and to dump in your toilet. If
you do not want your friend dumping in your toilet, do not let them into your
house.

On Monday, January 11, 2010 9:58 AM
Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote:

See http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/autoreply_spam.
See http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/autoreply_spam.htm

Assuming this is a real person and not a spammer or bulk mailer - Instead of
pretending to "bounce" their mail - send them one reply and one reply only,
telling them to stop sending you mail and that in the future, all mail will
be deleted unread. If your ISP has webmail and you can set up delete rules
online, set up a rule to delete their mail on the server as soon as it
arrives. Otherwise, set Outlook to delete it.

Do not use rules to autoreply to every message they send. it is not worth the
effort.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com/

Outlook Tips by email:
mailto:dailytips-subscribe-(E-Mail Removed)

EMO - a weekly newsletter about Outlook and Exchange:
mailto:EMO-NEWSLETTER-SUBSCRIBE-(E-Mail Removed)

Poll: What version of Exchange server do you use?
http://forums.slipstick.com/showthread.php?t=33803

On Monday, January 11, 2010 12:15 PM
Dave Warren wrote:

In message <IXB2n.715$(E-Mail Removed).
In message <IXB2n.715$(E-Mail Removed)> "David"


Ctrl-R, type "I do not wish to hear from you again, thanks for your time"
and then Ctrl-Enter.

On Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:24 AM
VanguardLH wrote:

Diane Poremsky [MVP] wroteavid does not want a sane solution.
Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote:


David does not want a sane solution.
David does not want to be polite.
David wants to punish.


Submitted via EggHeadCafe - Software Developer Portal of Choice
ASP.NET Providerless Custom Forms Authentication, Roles and Profile with MongoDb
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials...h-mongodb.aspx