Re: #1093

[Dan Schlitt <schlitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Judging from the "Unknown Users" list I see in my log files I conclude
that the spammers have a list of likely users that they use. They don't
have any relation to addresses that they find out in the Internet. Some
even look like variations that might be used by some places to avoid
spam to more obvious users.

One mailbox or three, it doesn't seem like something that merits
spending time on. Is it a protocol issue? Does it need to be
standardized? No and no.

/dan

-- 

Dan Schlitt
schlitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:

>
> 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?
>
>