Jennifer Wheeler said:
>>
>> Somehow I missed this new one and didn't know until last night. My
>> question
>> is, prosecuted by who? Doesn't the CANSPAM act make it only ISPs still.
>> I
>> feel this will go the way of the ADV: tag.
>
> Just an aside... This made me wonder too how much this tag really would
> be
> used, so I peeped my spam folder. Only 160 spams in my personal mail
> since
> midnight, but not one tag. I was skeptical until I went to my second spam
> directory (which is the old email address of my *Male* coworker; we both
> use
> it to collect spam samples) and it was *riddled* with the tags. ;) hmmm,
> ??
> must.. resist..
>
> Anyhoo, FWIW, they were all in proper format. Maybe there is a little
> hope
> here.
>
> Jennifer
>
>>
>> --Chris
>
>
So far most of what I'm seeing here is the "correct" format, but there are
a few others as well. Some quick grep results on the quaratine at work:
# egrep "Subject:" -i /var/spool/mail/spam | egrep "SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT" -i -c
197
# egrep "Subject:" -i /var/spool/mail/spam | egrep "SEXUALLY.?EXPLICIT" -i -c
215
# egrep "Subject:" -i /var/spool/mail/spam | egrep "SEXUALLY.?EXPLIC[EI]T"
-i -c
215
# egrep "Subject:" -i /var/spool/mail/spam | egrep
"sexual.{0,4}explic[ie]t" -i -c
226
Most have the tag at the beginning of the line, but a few throw it in at
the end. For what it's worth, most all of these scored +10 points even
without the CANSPAM_SE rule :)
Cheers,
-matt
