Re: LYNX-DEV lynx-dev list status/problems

[Klaus Weide]

On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Jim Dennis wrote:

> > CONTINUING:
> > 
> > Filter rules: 
> > 
> > Any spam that I get these days has invoked my edress in a Bcc:
> > header.  It doesn't appear in either To: or Cc: headers.  This is
> > my idea of the first filter we should apply to messages which
> > arrive at SigNet for delivery to lynx-dev.  This is a rule that
> > messages are suspect unless they contain either "lynx-dev" or
> > "address@hidden" in their To: or Cc: header value.
> 
>       That doesn't make sense.  The Bcc: header shouldn't 
>       show up on the recipient's envelope.

You are confusing envelope and headers.  The envelope is what you
never see (unless you read sendmail logfiles), but there may be some
indication of what was in the envelope, in the form of Return-path:
and Received: headers.

>       If you are getting spam that doesn't show lynx-dev in the
>       To: or Cc: lines then the mail is probably bypassing this
>       list altogether.

Al is talking about messages as they appear when they reach the mail
host at sig.net, not when they reach the individual subscriber.  And
he is applying an observation about non-list spam he personally gets
to spam in general.

If Al's observation about non-list spam in his personal mailbox
applies to email spam in general (I don't know whether it does), then
the rule he proposes makes sense.

  Klaus

;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;