[Resolved] Spamcop didn't obscure cc addresses

[C2H5OH]

Just tried to report a spam with headers containing a clear-text cc list (these seem to be less common nowadays).

I'm sure that usually Spamcop replaces anything looking like a header email address with "x".

In this case, it sucessfully spotted MY address in the cc list and x'd it, but left all the others.

I cancelled report sending just in case the reported ISP (Hinet) were not trustworthy.

tracking URL; http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z3855501037z8...a3e0908d0869bbz

Anyone else seen this? Maybe I'm wrong and this is the way it always worked...

[Wazoo]

Just tried to report a spam with headers containing a clear-text cc list (these seem to be less common nowadays).

I'm sure that usually Spamcop replaces anything looking like a header email address with "x".

The To:, CC:, and Reply-To: lines are usually handled as you remember. However, in this case, the 'problem' is caused by the inclusion of this data within an X-: line. Not speaking as in insider, but it's generally assumed that because X-: lines can be added by anyone, anywhere, at any time in the movement and handling of the e-mail, the parser wouldn't spend much time even looking at them.

It is interesting the contents of a BCC: re now exposed to the recipient, but most would tend to look at this as a configuration error in most cases.

On one hand, the Report would be going to an ISP/Host that one would hope to be focusing on handling the spam issue, so the intended recipient addresses would have no interest. On the other hand, if the concern is somehow feeding this data back to a non-interested or even a complicite ISP/Host, what damage could it do? They've already got the addresses.

To me, it'd be a stretch to consider removal of that data to be allowed, even under the added words from Don, found at Material changes to spam

Wondering if the real question should be going to the folks indicated in another X=: line;

X-ServerMaster-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information

[C2H5OH]

Thanks for that Wazoo, I understand your point about the email addresses already being out there with spammers, but I'm always wary about exposing innocents' details any more than necessary.

If I get another like this I'll report it as normal.

[Wazoo]

Thanks for that Wazoo, I understand your point about the email addresses already being out there with spammers, but I'm always wary about exposing innocents' details any more than necessary.

Certainly wish there were more 'of us' with that mindset out there .... reminded of a recent phone call from a broither, during which he'd decided to send me a 'funny picture' directly from his iphone .... then listened to me complain about all of the FW: FW: FW: FW: addresses I had to wade through .., then only to find that whatever the graphc was ended up being an embedded 'cid:=' thing (read that as no trsal flename, no description data, etc.) just a huge string of hex data. Reminded hm that I only did plain-text for e-mail at my end. Yeah, I took all the joy out of it, he promised yet again that it'd be one of those really cold days before he'd sent me another e-mail <g>