Message-ID: <001001c3bab6$36fbed40$9ae486d4@bryan2>
From: "captbrian" <captbrian@ukonline.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <17d.24167aca.2d00d3a1@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:22:20 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Spam etc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

remember that anyone can write

"Re:LF: "

"at the start of the subject to make it SEEM as if it came thro' the
reflector.

Try it.

It may not have come from the reflector at all.

Sherlock Holmes - G3GVB


----- Original Message -----
From: <WarmSpgs@aol.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: 04 December 2003 18:14
Subject: Re: LF: Spam etc


> In a message dated 12/4/03 5:20:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> stewart.bryant@virgin.net writes:
>
> > It is not coming in
> > through the LF reflector
>
> Actually, some of it _is_ coming in through the reflector; the false
PayPal
> messages and the Nigerian bank transfer scams being recent instances.
Seldom
> does a week go by without one or two advertising messages getting through
this
> reflector.  It is far less than the general spam level most of us receive,
but
> it is a contributing factor.
>
> > although it is possible that a
> > spammer joined and harvested the addresses.
>
> Possible, though it is equally likely some of the members hit by one of
the
> previous viruses or trojans had their e-mail address books pilfered by
spammers.
>
> > Try something like mailwasher.
>
> All good and well, but as I said yesterday (a) it's not 100% effective,
and
> (b) one utterly miniscule change to the list rules would virtually
eliminate
> any spam coming through the reflector and thereby reduce the total volume
of
> junkmail.
>
> John
>
>