On Thursdayen den 1 January 1970 00.59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > P.S. This is not spam!
Oden Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > He he..., yeah right... > How do one keep this kind of [ed. - expletive] out of here? Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'd like to know, too. On Sunday 04 August 2002 10:04 am, Steven Lembark wrote: > The answer, of course, is Perl. The spamassassin module > to be precise, see <http://www.spamassassin.org> for > details. On Sunday 04 August 2002 10:13 am, Ged Haywood wrote: > No, I think the answer in this case is Ask. From what I can tell, the original had the following header: > X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N So did Ged's last response: > X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N It may have been included when Ged replied, which is how it got attached to his message. Which, in a way allows blocking of spam and spam-related threads, whether it is pro or con the originating message. However, a completely unrelated recent thread had these headers: > Subject: RE: can't fine ModuleConfig.c. > X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N What this tells me is that whatever is performing and inserting the X-Spam-Rating header is worthless to this list for this kind of spam. But, it is always easier to identify ex-post-facto spam than a priori spam. At the very least, the moderators (Ask?) should be able to identify the poster's originating subscribing infromation, unsubscribe them to the list, and/or notify them if it came from a compromised account. And of course, send whatever info we can to the RBL folks (or your favorite public list of spam offenders). Mike808/ -- () Join the ASCII ribbon campaign against HTML email and Microsoft-specific /\ attachments. If I wanted to read HTML, I would have visited your website! Support open standards.
