>Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 18:26 EDT
>From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH @
>To: cypherpunks @
>Some may have already seen this, but the Guardian Angels are trying to
>intrude onto the net... and are doing so in typical clueless newbie
>fashion. See the CUDigest web site for more information; the links to the
>most significant issues are:
> <http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/CUDS7/cud786> and
>Some interesting commentary is also in:
>Incidentally, one way in which they are displaying cluelessness is in
>taking L.Detweiler seriously.
Interesting stuff, Allen, even if some of these "horn-blowers" are a bit
clueless, to be sure. There has been some discussion on List-Managers about
these issues. Folks there will find some LM-pertinent material on spam wars
and growing grassroots organization against it in the first URL (search on
"CyberAngels FAQ file" and ": The War Has Started").
An excerpt from cud786's "Attention Spammer" article:
> a) Improve majordomo and listserv to recognize obviously forged
> headers and dump the messages. This is a simple change. If the
> supposedly "verified" From: line is non-conforming, trash the
> message. Some examples include:
> . more than one "from" address
> . totally ridiculous site names, especially where the
> top-level domain (the last one) isn't one of the "standard"
> three-letter names or a two-letter country code.
> b) A further improvement involves actually verifying the From:
> line before sending the message out again. This would be more
> work, but would make the spammer's job much more difficult. When
> processing a message, majordomo/listserv should open an SMTP
> connection to the site shown in the "From:" header. If that can't
> be done, the Return-Path and/or Received: headers should be parsed
> to find a system that _can_ be connected to.
> If the From: site is "real", majordomo/listserv should go further
> and verify that a RCPT-TO: will be accepted by the smtpd at that site.
> If it isn't real, at least verify that the next-site in the
> return-path is acceptable (RCPT-TO: postmaster @
Of course, the author's definition of "obvious" is really the crux here,
isn't it? :) Well I suppose, it's good that people are at least beginning
to think about this on a wider scale. Any general increase in the use of
gray matter is a positive thing, IMHO. ;)
Anyone have comments on verifying via SMTP? It's probably only viable for
low-volume lists, I'd guess.
"I could be mistaken, maybe it was _another_ bald-headed jigsaw-puzzle-
tattooed naked guy." --David Duchovny (Agent Fox Mulder on 'The X-Files')