Leendy" wrote in said:
You really want the spambots to harvest your e-mail address from your
newsgroup posts? If not, munge it or don't even bother using a valid
one.
X-FUDforum: aca5208ac8cb2e52279ddf57dc4d29a2 <319826>
User-Agent: FUDforum 2.7.5RC2
Another FUDforum poster using their gateway to post excessively long
lines in Usenet. Tell the admins or moderators of your forum that their
gateway (to Usenet) is spewing posts that are excessively long lines.
I can't even BELIEVE that this email gets past all the spam filters... but
<excessively physically long line truncated at 76 characters>
No such thing as a 100% effective spam filter. Since the spam was never
identified, no one can address why it failed to get snagged as spam.
Don't expect the limited functionality of Outlook's spam filter to catch
much spam. Bayesian filters are *guessing* schemes based on a history
of past e-mails.
The message has no sent date, no sent address, always has "VIAGRA" written
<excessively physically long line truncated at 76 characters>
The From, Date, Subject, To, and Cc headers were *data* added by
whomever composed the e-mail. They are NOT the headers added by the
mail hosts that transferred the e-mail. As data, the sender can put
whatever they want in those headers.
If you are testing on the string "viagra" then you'll lose that battle
of filtering that spam. Misspellings are often used. If it is HTML
formatted, the characters that you see rendered as a string "viagra"
could be encoded, spread across cells in a table, separated by
intervening non-printing characters or bogus HTML tags, and other
methods for separating the characters of the string that you see.
(I photochopped out my email address from the subject and to: fields... th
<excessively physically long line truncated at 76 characters>
And yet a plain-text of the source of the spam mail would've been far
more useful in analyzing the suspect e-mail. A photo of what you *see*
is usually worthless for analyzing an e-mail.
begin 644 CantFilterThis.jpg
`
end
Um, so we're supposed to review a blank file that happens to have a .jpg
extension? This is a text newsgroup so attachments may not be
permitted.
If you want someone to analyze an e-mail then you will need to provide a
full copy of the source text of the e-mail, including all headers
(although you may want to munge out your username in your e-mail address
or anyone else's mentioned in the e-mail).
