Re: #1093

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Charles Lindsey <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Except that "news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" is not likely to be visibly
> plastered all over Usenet and the Web, ready to be scraped by spammers
> (as "abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" might well be).

Right, that's why postmaster so rarely gets spam.

(In case it's not obvious, I'm being extremely sarcastic.)

> So if a spammer sends to news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx he must have read RFC
> 2142, and then looked at all the domains he found in Path headers and in
> Injection-Info and so tried putting "news@" in front of them.

No, they just send mail to news@ every single host that they run across in
any context.  Why bother going to the work of limiting it down?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>