News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:AMP: the missing controversy by megous on Saturday February 24, 2018 @08:51PM (#16456670)
I know, but AMP will be used mostly for automated email, and I'm not holding my breath many services that send me e-mail check their mailserver logs, if they even know such a thing exists. Bouncing to no-reply address will not help much either. And I need to receive e-mail from services I've registered to anyway, that's why I whitelist anything sent to a random email address that I assign to each service.

Better to just complain over channels where someone is actually listening.

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by tscs37 on Sunday February 25, 2018 @09:51AM (#16459188)
>Bouncing to no-reply address will not help much either.

If someone does that, it's a good method to land on basically any spam blacklist out there.

Most larger providers like mailgun will tell you if you're bouncing a lot of mails and reduce your reputation. Same for gmail even.

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by megous on Monday February 26, 2018 @09:31AM (#16465479)
Hmm, so if more people do this, anti-amp email blocking would reduce reputation of amp-email senders? Nice.
Re:AMP: the missing controversy by tscs37 on Monday February 26, 2018 @02:06PM (#16468011)
Indeed, atleast for most popular email providers that should be the case.

it also helps if you report senders that repeatedly bounce that way to spamlists. That usually gets a lively reaction.