From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/44142 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Russ Allbery Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Spam spam spam spam spam Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 21:10:30 -0800 Organization: The Eyrie Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <87it7exbdo.fsf@enberg.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017810734 16440 127.0.0.1 (3 Apr 2002 05:12:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 05:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16sd49-0004H3-00 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 07:12:13 +0200 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 16sd2y-0007x3-00; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 23:11:00 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 02 Apr 2002 23:11:08 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA07020 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 23:10:57 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 2154 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2002 05:10:43 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 2148 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2002 05:10:43 -0000 Original-Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (171.64.13.23) by gnus.org with SMTP; 3 Apr 2002 05:10:43 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 28326 invoked by uid 50); 3 Apr 2002 05:10:30 -0000 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: (Michel Schinz's message of "02 Apr 2002 09:09:14 +0200") Original-Lines: 13 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090005 (Oort Gnus v0.05) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp, sparc-sun-solaris2.6) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:44142 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:44142 Michel Schinz writes: > That sounds great. I personally use the following technique, which is > also simple and which, until last week, caught something like 95% of > the spam. The idea is simple: most spammers (until last week at > least :-) don't bother putting your e-mail address in the "To:" (or > "Cc:", or whatever) field. Yeah, that used to catch essentially all of mine, but unfortunately it's now down to only catching about 50%. Spammers are getting smarter. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)