Readable Addresses

[Excedrin]

Thanks!

I'm not so worried about my own address getting out to the wrong person cause the address that got out before I caught it and started working around it CAN BE CHANGED without too much trouble. I'm more worried that other SpamCop users are probably not aware of this situation and it might cause them more of a problem. For just about anyone else they would probabily have to dig and dig to find everybodies address they need to tell that they had to change their address to get away from a ton of spam.

BTW, is anybody thinking about a "spell check" module for this message board?

Kicked up the chain is all I can offer <g>

17778[/snapback]

[Wazoo]

Snippet of my e-mail, maybe addressing part of what you're saying;

to handle this additional Header line? I have been

seeing it show up more and more in looking through

the Tracking URLs offered up .. just that most folks

haven't caught it or don't care that the address is

exposed? Back to that mung or not question .....

BTW, is anybody thinking about a "spell check" module for this message board?

Believe it's available as part of this package ... the "full" package ... I believe we're still operating under the "not sure if we'll stick with this application" scenario ... see http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...w=findpost&p=54 <g>

[Wazoo]

I've seen it used a LOT in that fashion....but never, ever in the headers of a message...it doesn't belong there.

Umm, did you follow the link in Post #21 in this Topic? I don't recall that sample spam looking like a bounce ... not arguing with you at all, just noting that the same line is showing with a different set of servers involved is all ....

[Excedrin]

Yeah, the question to mung or not. That is where I see the trouble. If someone does chose to mung and then their address is exposed by

Original-recipient: rfc822;<your exposed email address here>

What is the use in munging out all of the other references to your address(s) in the reports that are generated?

It took me some time before I discovered it. So I think either other users haven’t caught it yet or they have been deleting or modifying the line and just not saying anything about it. I had and have reservations about bringing it up in such a public place like this. But I couldn’t find another more direct and private way to contact SpamCop personnel.

BTW, just had to add “mung” to my Microsoft Word for spell check short of figuring out how to do it online. I like to try and take my time to compose off-line so I don’t mind not knowing how to do spell check online. Keeps my connection time down..

I still haven't got this partual quote thing down (YET) But I'm working on the re-edit...

___________________________________________

Snippet of my e-mail, maybe addressing part of what you're saying;

to handle this additional Header line?  I have been

seeing it show up more and more in looking through

the Tracking URLs offered up .. just that most folks

haven't caught it or don't care that the address is

exposed?  Back to that mung or not question .....

[Excedrin]

Ok, Just finally got another email via NASA. It still does not include the header-tag "Original-recipient:". But this time I think I have figured out why. But as this is a very public forum, I'm not sure I should share my insites with the world of spammers that might try to use it to their advantage. But I can say that after readig through the mountain of RFC's that I (think) I understand why the header-tag never shows up on NASA's stuff. I had discontinued recieving from them while I was going through my address changes mostly just so I didn't have one more entity to contact about changing addresses...