Jay Garcia wrote: > On 05/09/02 16:13, krutch Replied As Follows: > > --- Original Message --- > > >>Jay Garcia wrote: >> >>>On 05/09/02 11:42, krutch Replied As Follows: >>> >>>--- Original Message --- >>> >>> >>> >>>>Jay Garcia wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Many users, I for one, use the SECURE server(s) and I post with my REAL >>>>>mail address. I don't particularly care to have my real address spread >>>>>all over usenet. I have the good fortune to own my own mail server and >>>>>therefore have many *throw-away* addresses mainly so that I can track >>>>>where spam harvesting originates. >>>> >>>>Actually over in the <news.software.readers> group a couple of years ago >>>>an individual did some testing. He found that harvesters often parse the >>>> "from" line only and NOT the "reply-to". Therefore at this point in >>>>time, the most effective way to spam protect is to use the following >>>>format. Notice the proper use of the "invalid" domain. One shouldn't use >>>>a remove spam tramp line. Ending in an invalid top level domain is the >>>>proper way to spam trap <ie>: >>>> >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>>That's the proper syntax and one won't receive much in the way of UCE, >>>>at least whenever the foregoing example is used. >>>> >>>>Now, my issue is that Mozilla and NN7 don't work properly doing this. >>>>Whenever I attempt to do this, with either, each post I respond to, >>>>sends MY followup, or composition to the "Reply-To". This is the only >>>>newsreader, e-mail client that has ever done this. >>>> >>> >>> >>>I got news (no pun intended) for you. The modern up-to-date harverting >>>bots look for many things now, including the reply-to. They're also >>>sophisticated enough to look for NOSPAM in your mail address as well as >>>other munge tactics. >> >>Actually, harvesters by and large don't, repeat don't, harvest all the >>headers and especially the reply-to. I don't receive any UCE to the >>reply-to I use with my "other" nntp client [slrn] and I'm quite prolific >>on Usenet and have been for years. The overhead for large parsing of all >> headers is too time consuming for large scale harvesting operations. >> >> >>>As to your other problem, when you choose to "reply to all" or both >>>"sender and newsgroup" this will happen. If you reply to "group only" it >>>won't. >> >>It does it on a reply - Control-R. Isn't the the same as followup to >>group only? Hmm - I'll check it out to see if this is so. I'm pretty >>sure I'm already tried this. >> >>Thanks for responding. >> > > > Not going to argue the point, I've been doing this since 1995, > harvesting that is and I can harvest reply-to fields as well as email > addresses such as <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and NO I don't harvest for > spam purposes, for a Medical School client. Specially written software > but nevertheless works as intended.
Naturally, I'm not saying one can't parse all the headers, simply that 99% of all spammers don't. =) I guess they're an impatient bunch. > What I was speaking of is if you choose to reply to "sender and > newsgroup" the email goes to the "reply-to" as well as the reply going > to the group. Replying to "just the group" is self-explanatory. > Right, but it doesn't work properly, is my point...
