On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 17:55 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
And better yet, how to defend against it as I'd like to /dev/null any
message with an unlisted header.
Bad idea to poison-pill that.
IMO the appearance of "Undisclosed recipients:" in a list of addresses
should not be taken as an indication of spam, but as always ymmv.
Agreed. For example, if I send an email to several of my correspondents
but I don't want them to know who else I've sent the message to (because I
respect their privacy), I'll only use BCC:. This results in an empty TO:,
which will likely get populated with some variant of "undisclosed
recipients". The message is legitimate, classifying it as spam for
"undisclosed recipient" would be a FP.
Now if a particular variant of that text didn't FP much, you'd be
justified in giving it a point. Anybody with big corpa want to investigate
this?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the
constant victim of brutal attacks. -- Malcolm X (1964)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 days since Obama's inauguration and still no unicorn!
