Spamming of NANOG list members
eric-list at truenet.com
Fri May 24 22:11:56 UTC 2019
On May 24, 2019, at 5:58 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 06:34:25PM +0300, Scott Christopher wrote:
>> https://marc.info/?l=nanog&r=1&w=2 and https://lists.gt.net/nanog/
>> mangle email addresses in the headers but do nothing about email addresses
>> that are quoted / attributed in the body.
> There is zero, as in 0.0, point in mangling/obfuscating/etc. email
> addresses in forlon and misguided and ultimately futile attempts to keep
> spammers from getting their hands on them. I wrote about this extensively
> a few years ago so please let me cite myself in these two messages :
I guess you don’t get Comcast abuse reports, below is an example:
"e7f05f85ba44ad3393e7b086eed202ee b2cca3a3ae3825c36999e12722e83830" <eed6df6cd94ee61a5091e4d46af49993 at gmail.com>, "Ed d95a762f93c99703afe76d25f1679ea4" <d9bf58b67f09a3bec99fff00b2f12160 at comcast.net>
Let me see you figure out who on a shared server sent that message, hell, it’s gmail.com and comcast.net so appears on the logs probably significantly on most single use corporate servers as well.
> On the other hand, there are a lot of reasons NOT to mangle/obfuscate/etc.
> email addresses, including the use of archives by people who come along
> later and are trying to track down authors of messages of interest.
This I sort of agree with on the above example, at least to some extent. FBL’s are meant to alert to issues, as far as tracking them down it’s more of the mail ops job, so they are sort of allowed to make it a PIMA to avoid causing more issues by confirming.
More information about the NANOG