I suspect that is more of a broken spammer than a new trick. But it might
be interesting to test the theory on a corpus. I can't see what good that
line is going to do for the spammer.
Loren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Spiegl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <users@spamassassin.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 3:23 AM
Subject: New spammer trick?
> Hi, I just got a nigerian spam with a huge Reply-To: line!
> Never seen that trick before, but I suppose it works with quite a few of
> the recipients. Should we create a new rule for that? I can't think of a
> legitimate reason to have more than one address in the Reply-To line,
right?
>
> Here goes a sample:
>
> From: chukwuelofu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
> Subject: I want to be your future partner/Response
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> ...
>
> From The Desk Top Of
> Prof. Chukwu Elofu,
> MD/CEO Financial Consultant,
> Federal Republic Of Nigeria.
>
> ATTN:
>
> I have interest of investing in your country as such I
> decided to establish contact with you for assistance
> as soon as I am able to transfer my funds for this
> ...
>
> --
> o _ _ _
> ------- __o __o /\_ _ \\o (_)\__/o (_) -o)
> ----- _`\<,_ _`\<,_ _>(_) (_)/<_ \_| \ _|/' \/ /\\
> ---- (_)/ (_) (_)/ (_) (_) (_) (_) (_)' _\o_ _\_v
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Local Area Network in Australia: the LAN down under.
