Re: blank spam
die spammer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.spamcop.help |
|---|---|
| Organization | SpamCop |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
download.com does have a mailenium program available for download N. Miller wrote: > On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:23:36 -0800, die spammer wrote: > > >>is it me or is anyone else getting blank spam created by mailenium? is >>it the same person sending the watch ad spam. >> >>It seems that Mailenium is an email encryption add-on. > > > Maillenium is not an encryption add-on; it is just the Comcast mail server > software. Neither does not "create" email, it just processes it; same as > any other MTA. Here is the banner I get when I open a Telnet session to > smtp.comcast.net on port 25: > > |220 comcast.net - Maillennium ESMTP/MULTIBOX sccrmhc12 #43 > > When you see the Comcast header lines about non-compliance with RFC 821, > and adding a date, that is just the MTA telling you how it handled a > particular problem it found with an incoming email. > > As for the blank message; that is a common problem with a particular > version of spamware. It affects the sent message, not the received message; > different MTAs will handle the oddity according to their local processing > rules. Yahoo! Mail MTAs handle it well, adding the SpamGuard Bulk > notification in the headers. Here is my latest example: > > http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z822480694z8148e83a82668f76712a5bb10dd6e8c6z > > Note the SpamGuard header line, "X-YahooFilteredBulk: 61.125.107.28", which > would cause this to be placed in the Yahoo! Bulk folder. I have this > particular SBC sub account set to forward email to my local MTA, though. > > Also note the truncation of the MID$; that is the sign that this particular > version of this spamware is broken. All header lines after the broken MID$ > were added by the aosake.net MTA. I have seen one good example of this as > received at a Comcast email account; same sign of brokenness. A lot of > Comcast users are complaining because the Comcast spam filters, apparently, > can't handle these as well as Yahoo! Mail's SpamGuard does. >