> Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: from dns (dns.hdpu.edu.cn [202.194.145.66]) by mailsvr1.telebot.net
> (Rockliffe SMTPRA 3.4.7) with SMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> Tue, 1 Aug 2000 02:47:01 -0700
> Received: from bluegrass.net by dns (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
> id SAA20057; Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:51:39 -0700
> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:51:39 -0700
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-Id: <200008020151.SAA20057@dns>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Open relay test
> X-Mailer: UKA_PPP 1.7x1
> This is a test of a spam relay just to see if I can send an e-mail message
> through it.
Sam,
Here the open relay was dns (dns.hdpu.edu.cn [202.194.145.66]), and the
destination server was mailsvr1.telebot.net. If I had called myself something
presumably fictitious like [EMAIL PROTECTED], the
Received: from bluegrass.net ... line would presumably still have showed.
Spammers probably know much more than me how to hide their tracks, but spam
figures to become less profitable as Internet users see something that looks
like spam and don't consider the offer no matter how attractive it might look.
I wish telemarketers would realize that. Telemarketing is worse than email or
newsgroup spam. When my telephone rings and I see UNKNOWN NAME on the Caller ID
unit, I have already decided not to buy the product or service or contribute to
the organization, no matter how good the cause. Maybe 5% of calls that show
UNKNOWN NAME are legit? Or maybe companies that use telemarketing figure it
profitable even with 1 favorable response out of 100?
