SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: SPAM was: [SLUG] is this the link?
- To: Adrian van den Dries <az@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: SPAM was: [SLUG] is this the link?
- From: Anand Kumria <wildfire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu Oct 26 11:53:40 2000
- Reply-to: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.2i
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
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 [188.8.131.52] (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.