Re: SPAM was: [SLUG] is this the link?

[Anand Kumria <wildfire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 09:43:13AM +1100, Adrian van den Dries wrote:
> Wrote Anand:
> > 
> > This means, though, that in order to be effective more spam should be
> > reported to MAPS if possible. Gus pointed out 
> 
> Trouble is, of course, that the envelope headers are lost by mailman, so all
> we have to go on is the From: line, which often isn't very useful (see
> mine).

Eh? The Received line contains the originating site. Most spammers use
the standard null reply construct anyway. So knowing who they claim
to be adds little. For this message I got:

Received: from [203.63.54.90] (helo=mail.cantanker.net ident=postfix)                   by slug.progsoc.uts.edu.au with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))                   id 13oZAc-000429-00                                                             for <slug@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:37:18 +1100                 Received: by mail.cantanker.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)                     

So were it spam I'd be sending email to someone @cantanker.net

> What goes in the X-RBL-Warning: header?

It contains a URL to the reason why a machine is in the RBL.

Anand.