SPAM: which is better—Trash or Return to Sender?

[fjpoblam]

I'm now reasonably happy with my user-level filter. The definitions seem to catch most all the plethora of spam I fetch daily.

 

I like to keep my (MDDhosting's) mail server scrupulously clean. Empty. I regularly take whatever steps I may to do so.

 

The final question has to do with the disposition of spam. Is it better to direct it to a folder (./TRASH) and manually empty it, or better to "return to sender" (Fail with Message)? I guess it comes down to, "return to sender" might give the spammer a hint that I'm still here and I give a crap. But I can't see that either method is more efficient server-wise.

 

FWIW, insofar as *my own* efficiency is concerned, my email client of habit is the iOS mail app.

 

Opinion?

[Tim]

I would suggest simply deleting the messages, replying to the sender does validate that it is a working email address.

 

-Tim M.

[fjpoblam]

I would suggest simply deleting the messages, replying to the sender does validate that it is a working email address.

 

-Tim M.

To follow up (much later): how may one "simply delete" in a manner which assures a trash pile does not accumulate on the server? Is this a matter of directing to my ./trash then incinerating my own trash (using my laptop client), or is there a more efficient way?