5XX vs 4XX

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

5XX vs 4XX

John Schmerold
I have a few email addresses that were valid 15 years ago, but they have
been invalid for 5+ years, we are rejecting them with a 450 message, my
thought is "Let's tie up this spammer's computer just a little bit"

Good idea? Bad idea? Effective? Ineffective?

--
John Schmerold
Katy Computer Systems, Inc
https://katycomputer.com
St Louis

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 5XX vs 4XX

Patrick Proniewski
Hi

> On 02 nov. 2019, at 19:44, John Schmerold <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have a few email addresses that were valid 15 years ago, but they have been invalid for 5+ years, we are rejecting them with a 450 message, my thought is "Let's tie up this spammer's computer just a little bit"
>
> Good idea? Bad idea? Effective? Ineffective?


Bad senders being bad senders, I wouldn't bother tailoring a special policy for some particularly old email addresses. I've never seen any benefit against spammers and even non spamming B2C senders can try a decade old email address that is failing for years without removing it from their lists…

pat
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 5XX vs 4XX

Wietse Venema
In reply to this post by John Schmerold
John Schmerold:
> I have a few email addresses that were valid 15 years ago, but they have
> been invalid for 5+ years, we are rejecting them with a 450 message, my
> thought is "Let's tie up this spammer's computer just a little bit"
>
> Good idea? Bad idea? Effective? Ineffective?

I think it is a total waste of resources on both ends.

        Wietse