On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 03:31:53PM -0500, Len Budney wrote:
> Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Text written by Len Budney at 05:07 PM 1/27/99 -0500: Does any
> > >non-spammer routinely include >25 (or even >5) BCC's in a message?
> > >The only exception I can think of is corporate email, which, of
> > >course, is immune to such rules since the corporate mail server can
> > >handle them appropriately.
> >
> > Yes. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), among
> > many other organizations, has a mass mailing list...
>
> Oops, you're correct. I was ignoring real mailing lists because I had
> something special in mind for them--which I then forget to specify.
>
> To achieve the Spam-Free World of Tomorrow (tm), majordomo must be
> outlawed. The only permitted mailing list managers will be
> qmail/ezmlm, and any other manager which implements VERPs. Hence, they
> will already be towing the mark of "one envelope recipient per email".
>
> Further, so that such mails aren't dropped by "BCC filters", a header
> must always be introduced which includes the recipient address. I
> suggest "Resent-to".
Ok. So the spammer will put a Resent-To header in his mails. Not too hard
to do, I've already gotten some spams which had my address in the To: field.
BCC filters don't cut it anymore.
> > Just because spammers use the Bcc: field doesn't make all use of it evil.
> > After all, spammers use the Internet, too.
>
> Though you are correct, it doesn't matter. No price is too high to
> stop filthy spammers. Collateral damage is a fortune of war. Wear a
> flak-jacket if you're frightened.
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
