> Yup. I've complained to the main Spamcop guy about that. Spammers > harvest "honeypot" addresses (among others), forge those addresses as > the purported sender of the spam email. If the mail bounces, (...) > then you get listed by Spamcop. > > His response can be summarized as "too bad, you shouldn't respond to > spam". This is an untenable position that requires you to violate Internet standards and, in passing, would make it impossible to remove bad addresses from e-mail lists (which, ironically, will get innocent people listed as spammers). When an innocent site receives mail to an address that does not exist, it is required by Internet standards to bounce it. Strike one. To suppress that bounce in the specific case where the message comes from a Spamcop honeypot, which would be a huge hassle, you would have to know that the message comes from a honeypot. But, by definition, these addresses are secret, so you simply can't do that. Strike two. To suppress the bounce in the specific case where the message is spam, you would need a 100% accurate spam filter, since a single hit will get you blacklisted. There are no 100% accurate spam filters. Strike three. If you were to comply with Spamcop's requirement by summarily suppressing any and all bounces, people would never know when they sent to a bad address, so they would have no way to stop doing that. They would be unable to clean up their lists, which is one of the top three ways to get blacklisted today. Eric