On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2017-02-07 18:33, Ruga wrote:
I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. The To
From and Cc fields are defined by a grammar AND a natural language
description. Such fields MUST hold addresses, were an address is a
username the "@"
On 2017-02-07 18:33, Ruga wrote:
> I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. The To
> From and Cc fields are defined by a grammar AND a natural language
> description. Such fields MUST hold addresses, were an address is a
> username the "@" symbol and a domain name. The string
I follow the actual RFC standard, not the proposed revisions. The To From and
Cc fields are defined by a grammar AND a natural language description. Such
fields MUST hold addresses, were an address is a username the "@" symbol and a
domain name. The string "undisclosed recipients: ;" does not pa
On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:57 AM, Ruga wrote:
> The spample would never make it to our SA. It would be rejected upstream for
> at least two reasons:
>
> > To: undisclosed recipients: ;
> The To header is not RFC compliant.
Where do you get that idea? “Undisclosed recipient: ;” is a group address.
On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 02:57:06 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> > To: undisclosed recipients: ;
> The To header is not RFC compliant.
Yes it is. RFC 5322 even gives the header Cc: undisclosed recipients: ;
as an example in Appendix A.1.3, Group Addresses.
> The Subject header exceeds the
> maximum line leng
On 2017-02-07 09:37, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> 11.5 - 3.5 = 8.0
And of course 1.2.3.x is not the true relay address, so
> 1.5 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or virusbot
> [botnet0.8,ip=1.2.3.12,rdns=disorder.censored.net,maildomain=outlook.fr,baddns]
this goes out of the
On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:46:47 -0800
Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2017-02-06 20:06, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> > > Last couple of weeks I saw some messages whose entire contents is
> > > in the Subject.
>
> > never seen such a monster. likely killed by some other piece in the
> > puzzle. Throw it
On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 02:57:06 -0500
Ruga wrote:
> The spample would never make it to our SA. It would be rejected
> upstream for at least two reasons:
>
> > To: undisclosed recipients: ;
>
>
> The To header is not RFC compliant.The Subject header exceeds the
> maximum line length,
You can rej
On 2/7/2017 2:57 AM, Ruga wrote:
The spample would never make it to our SA. It would be rejected
upstream for at least two reasons:
That was my thought as well. I've never seen this type of spam and that
was my expectation as well.
On 07.02.17 02:57, Ruga wrote:
The spample would never make it to our SA. It would be rejected upstream for at
least two reasons:
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
The To header is not RFC compliant.
but very common...
The Subject header exceeds the maximum line length, being another RFC
c
Ian Zimmerman kirjoitti 7.2.2017 4:46:
On 2017-02-06 20:06, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Last couple of weeks I saw some messages whose entire contents is in
> the Subject.
never seen such a monster. likely killed by some other piece in the
puzzle. Throw it up on pastebin?
http://pastebin.c
11 matches
Mail list logo
