Elton Ramos Carvalho wrote: > Matt Kettler wrote: > >> Elton Ramos Carvalho wrote: >> >> >>> I`m getting some spams with "Return-Path: ([EMAIL PROTECTED])". >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> >>> >>> Then I did this rule. >>> >>> header EL_NOBODY_RP Return-Path =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/i >>> describe EL_NOBODY_RP Contém nobody no return path >>> score EL_NOBODY_RP 1.0 >>> >>> What do you think about? >>> Is it a good idea? >>> >> >> It seems ok, but not for a high score. (see below) >> >> >> >>> Will it give me some ham? >>> >> >> >> Definitely! >> >> I don't know if the following sites still use nobody based return >> paths, but the >> I have gotten emails using it from the following sites. Most of these >> are old, >> but they are actual examples. >> >> groklaw.com - registration confirmation, 2/2004 >> sourceforge.net - subscription validation mail 11/2003 >> Washingtonpost.com - archived article purchase receipt 3/2003 >> mci.com - Internet abuse report acknowledgment. 8/2003 >> >> >> >> >> >> > Matt, where did you get this information? >
I searched my mail archives in my mailclient.
