David Levine <[email protected]> writes: > Non-qualified hostnames do get used, even to this list. I > looked at a small collection of spam and saw hardly any > random "hostname" parts, but the sample is biased (it got > through some filters) and very small.
I have a rather larger collection of spam handy ... and there's quite a lot of unqualified hostnames in there, as well as quite a lot of raw IP addresses. I would suggest trying to make sure that the phony-hostname part doesn't look like either of those categories. I don't personally use such a thing as spam sign, but I bet some people do. Perhaps it would do to intentionally insert a couple of dots in the otherwise random string, ie instead of "...@QcTLPy+DeAJLdhEN" something like "[email protected]+DeA.JLdhEN". Personally I'd be inclined to limit the characters used for the "random" data to alphanumerics, too, to make it look more like a hostname. If you want 64 characters so that it works like base64, maybe add "-" and "_" to the repertoire. regards, tom lane _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
