procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Hey Doctor {WHO} --- fix your damn spam-filter to be a little more careful

1997-04-16 13:28:00

Nice job... He criticizes my choice of spam-protection as being too  
restrictive, and my response to him gets rejected as spam (see  
below).

And, in addition, my email address appears 3 times in the 'to'  
line, and it also appears in the 'reply-to' line.  Very slick use of  
procmail.

His message also says:

If your message was not spam, my appologies...  Please edit the
keywords out that make look like an ad and re-send it to the
addressee below.

First of all, you might want to spell-check your auto-responder.   
Secondly, I'm not sure what words you are scanning for, but they are  
obviously pretty poor choices since it caught a message that was  
entirely not spam, but just about spam.  I'm not sure what words you  
are looking for, and I'm certainly not going to waste any time  
figuring it out.

Then, of course, there's the fact that there is no "addressee  
below" (unless you are referring to my original message).

Anyway, your suggestion on how to improve my spam-filter is  
obviously tainted by your poorly designed one.



Begin forwarded message:

From doctor(_at_)netcom(_dot_)com  Wed Apr 16 11:59:52 1997
Received: from mail5.netcom.com (doctor(_at_)mail5(_dot_)netcom(_dot_)com  
[192.100.81.141]) by PEAK.ORG (8.8.5/8.6.7) with SMTP id LAA03395  
for <luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org>; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from doctor(_at_)localhost) by mail5.netcom.com  
(8.6.13/Netcom) id LAA04052; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:59:43 -0700
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:59:43 -0700
Message-Id: <199704161859(_dot_)LAA04052(_at_)mail5(_dot_)netcom(_dot_)com>
From: Mailer-Daemon(_at_)netcom(_dot_)com
Subject: Your E-Mail Spam was automatically rejected Re: Re: My  
growing list of bad domains
To: "Timothy J. Luoma" <luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org>, 
luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org,  
luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org
Reply-To: "Timothy J. Luoma" <luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org>, 
luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org,  
luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org
Errors-To: "Timothy J. Luoma" <luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org>, 
luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org,  
luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org
X-Loop: Spam Bounce
X-Comment: ATTN: POSTMASTER - This user is spamming the net via mail
Status:

Your message was rejected as it appears to be spam.

Sending unsolicited advertisements is unethical, if not against
your terms of service, and only goes to prove that your offer is
likely a scam, and that you are not to be trusted.

If it is spam, it is against US laws.  Please note:
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meet the
definition of a telephone fax machine.  By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is  
unlawful to
send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by  
action to
recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for  
each violation.

If your message was not spam, my appologies...  Please edit the keywords
out that make look like an ad and re-send it to the addressee below.

If you are spamming and I am forced to read it personally, your
ISP administrators WILL be notified, and your account will most
likely be cancelled.


  --- Original Message Follows ---

From luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org  Wed Apr 16 11:59:39 1997
Received: from PEAK.ORG (root(_at_)PEAK(_dot_)ORG [198.68.22.17]) by mail5  
(8.6.13/Netcom)         id LAA03956; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:59:37 -0700
Received: from kira.peak.org (ppp14.nerc.com [205.247.120.198]) by  
PEAK.ORG (8.8.5/8.6.7) with ESMTP id LAA03375; Wed, 16 Apr 1997  
11:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from luomat(_at_)localhost)  by kira.peak.org  
(8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA22608;      Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:01:07 -0400  
(EDT)
Message-ID: <199704161801(_dot_)OAA22608(_at_)kira(_dot_)peak(_dot_)org>
Content-Type: text/plain
MIME-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2)
X-Image-URL: http://www.nerc.com/~luomat/Timothy_J_Luoma-X-Face.tiff
In-Reply-To: 
<Pine(_dot_)SUN(_dot_)3(_dot_)95(_dot_)970415125006(_dot_)22230A-100000(_at_)netcom9>
X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 3.3 (Enhance 2.0b5)
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.118.2)
From: "Timothy J. Luoma" <luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 14:00:48 -0400
Subject: Re: My growing list of bad domains
cc: procmail(_at_)Informatik(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
References: 
<Pine(_dot_)SUN(_dot_)3(_dot_)95(_dot_)970415125006(_dot_)22230A-100000(_at_)netcom9>
Organization: Princeton Theological Seminary
X-Url: http://www.peak.org/~luomat/
X-NeXTStep-Url: http://www.peak.org/~luomat/next
X-PGP-Key: Email me
Lines: 32
Return-Path: luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org
Reply-To: luomat(_at_)peak(_dot_)org
Status: O
To: the doctor {who?} <doctor(_at_)netcom(_dot_)com>

Responding To:  The Doctor {Who?} <doctor(_at_)netcom(_dot_)com>
Original Date:  Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID:     
<Pine(_dot_)SUN(_dot_)3(_dot_)95(_dot_)970415125006(_dot_)22230A-100000(_at_)netcom9>

USA.Net (NetAddress) doesn't tollerate it's users spamming, and
WILL cancel such accts. if reported.

Yes, actually I have received a message from the sysadmin @ usa.net  
and they have cancelled some accounts I've reported.

These domains are "sorted" not "trashed", so I do not lose the messages

I was not publishing those domains as a list others should block,
just that I want to sort.

The process I use to filter is pretty complex, and this is just one  
piece.  It works fairly well, but it is pretty conservative.. I'd
rather filter a message to a spam box than has a spam end up in my  
Inbox.

TjL

ps - the best way to fight spammers is to know who they are before  
they get to you, right?  This list has helped a lot, but it only
works if you send them a copy of the spams that you get (so they can  
be forwarded to the entire list):

Send a message to 'Majordomo(_at_)hiss(_dot_)han(_dot_)de' with the BODY 
"subscribe  
spam-list(_at_)toby(_dot_)han(_dot_)de"



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>