full-disclosure - Re: Empty emails?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: gr at eclipsed.net (gabriel rosenkoetter)
Subject: Re: Empty emails?

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 01:40:51PM -0700, James Lay wrote:
> What's interesting is that the To: undisclosed-recipients:; line is tagged
> only by my exchange server.  It looks like just as some people have
> said...looks like it's spammers trying to verify the email address.  But
> they send via BCC...with BCC there simply isn't a To: line (least not the
> ones I tested).  I've looked at blocking via postfix, but no go.  What I MAY
> be able to do is use anomy tools to do a double-check..IE:

Huh?

You think that spammers actually fill out the fields you're used to
seeing in a MUA? Those are cute and all, but they've got nothing to
do with SMTP.

They're just doing this:

MAIL FROM: <BS>
RCPT TO: <your@...il.address>
DATA

.

Why bother being polite and sending headers for the MUA to read if
you're spamming anyway?

-- 
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@...ipsed.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20040226/6faf636a/attachment.bin