<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bounce Spam?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.jezmckean.com/bounce-spam/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.jezmckean.com/bounce-spam/</link>
	<description>adjective: see 'Recursive'</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: jazzle</title>
		<link>http://blog.jezmckean.com/bounce-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>jazzle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:13:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jezmckean.com/2006/08/12/bounce-spam/#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the suggestions (and the compliment!) TW.

The webmaster@ and postmaster@ addresses often get as much spam in my experience, and it's a shame that spammers don't realise that the people who see the emails sent to those addresses are probably the least likely to respond.

Perhaps the real problem is the people who respond to the emails at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the suggestions (and the compliment!) TW.</p>
<p>The webmaster@ and postmaster@ addresses often get as much spam in my experience, and it&#8217;s a shame that spammers don&#8217;t realise that the people who see the emails sent to those addresses are probably the least likely to respond.</p>
<p>Perhaps the real problem is the people who respond to the emails at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TW</title>
		<link>http://blog.jezmckean.com/bounce-spam/comment-page-1/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>TW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:56:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jezmckean.com/2006/08/12/bounce-spam/#comment-49</guid>
		<description>Personally I would go with the leaving the catch all and setting it up so it empties every few weeks (or days, depending on the volume).

Bounces dont deter spammers - often the email addresses are so heavily faked the wrong person will get the bounce and think you are spamming them. Also, as you mention, it would just add to network traffic.

As an aside, it is "good practice" to have an address like "webmaster@example.com" so people can send generic emails / problem reports.

Oh, yeah - good blog :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally I would go with the leaving the catch all and setting it up so it empties every few weeks (or days, depending on the volume).</p>
<p>Bounces dont deter spammers - often the email addresses are so heavily faked the wrong person will get the bounce and think you are spamming them. Also, as you mention, it would just add to network traffic.</p>
<p>As an aside, it is &#8220;good practice&#8221; to have an address like &#8220;webmaster@example.com&#8221; so people can send generic emails / problem reports.</p>
<p>Oh, yeah - good blog :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
