Gene Heskett a écrit : > On Tuesday 14 February 2006 05:18, Loren Wilton wrote: > >>But one does have to wonder why they bothered sending it! >> >>Subject: SPAM:(L2) Making any textile product for you to save your >>cost(usa) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 06 09:04:02 ¥x¥_¼Ð·Ç®É¶¡ >>X-WinProxy-AntiSpam-Message: Scanned by >>http://www.WinProxy.com/WinProxy X-WinProxy-AntiSpam: Spam (77.50%) >> >>Yes, those are the headers from the spam as received, before my own SA >>had a chance to decide that it was indeed spam. >> >> Loren > > > Thats downright cute Loren. Could we say they hung themselves by their > own petard?
what if that was sent by a virus and then filtered by the local MTA? (assumng redir of port 25 to the local MTA). > > Thinking out loud here, could a procmail rule be written that checked > that, and /dev/null'd it so SA doesn't have to waste even more time on > it? > That would be a bad idea. intermediary MTAs may filter mail and add their own headers. they may consider the message spam based on a local config. this config may not be suitable for you. If that MTA rejected/bounced the mail, it would have been its problem. once that you get it, it's yours, and you should use your own rules/policy to decide.
