From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <4ACD6E20-064E-4500-BC97-1B98948A6F6F@orthanc.ca>
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20071126221404.GA21340@mero.morphisms.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Subject: Re: [9fans] wierd spam
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:24:19 -0800
References: <5a07215f3e7e896f4b528a1838e78757@quanstro.net>
	<20071126221404.GA21340@mero.morphisms.net>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0c8d7b1e-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 2007-Nov-26, at 14:14 , William Josephson wrote:

> Probably some spammer mistaking message IDs like
> <5a07215f3e7e896f4b528a1838e78757@quanstro.net>
> for addresses.

Makes sense.  The address harvesters are pretty stupid.  E.g., I use  
plus-detail addresses on my internet draft submissions, and regularly  
see spam sent to rfc-crammd5@orthanc.ca as a result of harvesters not  
parsing lyndon+rfc-crammd5@orthanc.ca correctly.

I'm slowly moving my mailing list subscriptions over to lyndon+@orthanc.ca 
, to take advantage of the spammers lack of RE-fu :-)  Sadly, there is  
still quite a bit of list management software that also doesn't grok  
full RFC[2]822 address syntax.

While the '+' hack helps circumvent the harvesting, bayesian filters  
are your only practical defense.

--lyndon