<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Backscatter Spam</title>
	<link>http://www.brettsheffield.com/email/backscatter-spam/</link>
	<description>Open Source for Business Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:36:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Brett Sheffield . com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; georbl.info</title>
		<link>http://www.brettsheffield.com/email/backscatter-spam/#comment-547</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:12:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.brettsheffield.com/email/backscatter-spam/#comment-547</guid>
					<description>[...] Rejecting mail at SMTP time is the &#8220;right&#8221; way to do things. It reduces bandwidth, memory, cpu and disk usage and eliminates backscatter. In a large ISP the two main costs are power and bandwidth, and so there are real cost savings to be made by enforcing RFCs at SMTP time. It&#8217;s even good for the environment. By ruthlessly checking for a postmaster address I know that while I sit at my keyboard here, I&#8217;m doing my bit for the polar ice caps. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Rejecting mail at SMTP time is the &#8220;right&#8221; way to do things. It reduces bandwidth, memory, cpu and disk usage and eliminates backscatter. In a large ISP the two main costs are power and bandwidth, and so there are real cost savings to be made by enforcing RFCs at SMTP time. It&#8217;s even good for the environment. By ruthlessly checking for a postmaster address I know that while I sit at my keyboard here, I&#8217;m doing my bit for the polar ice caps. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
