[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: MS mail bombs



In linux.debian.user, Jacob Anawalt <jacob@cachevalley.com> wrote:
>  Michael C. wrote:
>  
> >I asked this on alt.os.linux.  I was told to search freshmeat.net for a
> >perl script called "poppy."  It will get headers only, and ask what you
> >want to do with the mail one by one, but it also includes a script
> >called spamkill, which does okay.
> >
> >I'm debugging some changes I made now.  I tweaked it so if my email
> >isn't in the To:, Cc:, or Bcc: header it should be considered spam.
> >
> >Right now To:, and Cc: both work.
> >
>  I am almost 100% positive that your mail server won't have a Bcc: header 
>  for incoming mail.
>  
>  I imagine you have some whitelist rule for exceptions like the 
>  debian-user list which should have it's address in the To: line instead 
>  of your address. Sometimes debian-user goes on the Cc: line, which you 
>  must be watching for as well.
>  

Someone else mentioned this, I was happy with the script, I never said
I had a clue. :)

I've modified it since to check content-type: for multipart or html, and
then kill it unless my address is in To: or Cc:

As for the list, I opted not to subscribe.  I read it off usenet using
slrn.

To reply I hit 't', Highlight "To: debian-user@lists.debian.org"*, 
hit 't','r'.

When gvim opens I type ':1<CR>O', middle click, '<ESC>jdd'

Less convenient than hitting 'f', but I don't have to contend with
several hundred emails a week.  Okay, I didn't have to until someone
decided it might be fun if the latest virus harvested emails from
the debian archive on usenet.:(

* the header is X-Reply-To.  BTW, should I be leaving the To address as 
  it appears, I believe the list gets emailed to subscribers, or people
  like me read the archives on usenet, I don't see any need to reply to
  an individual under normal circumstances.

Michael C.
-- 
mcsuper5@usol.com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/
Registered Linux User #303915 http://counter.li.org/




Reply to: