From: NetSurfer <netsurf@pixi.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b840441034cd3ee44e19d858ee9c2506489c96384c90f602a0575e1fdcd0d093
Message ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960910055103.3896D-100000@netsurfer>
Reply To: <1.5.4.32.19960909182501.00685618@pop3.interramp.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-10 22:25:41 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 06:25:41 +0800
From: NetSurfer <netsurf@pixi.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 06:25:41 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960909182501.00685618@pop3.interramp.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960910055103.3896D-100000@netsurfer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Will Rodger wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Why not? Because spammers _invariably_ forge the return addresses to keep
> exactly that from happening. Indeed, Cyber Promo claims it "had an
And then there are the network headers - you can usually see where the
msg entered the net. These people aren't usually clever enough to spoof
the headers beyond the from and reply to fields.
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_ __ __ _____ ____
/ | / /__ / /_/ ___/__ _______/ __/__ _____
/ |/ / _ \/ __/\__ \/ / / / ___/ /_/ _ \/ ___/
/ /| / __/ /_ ___/ / /_/ / / / __/ __/ /
================/_/=|_/\___/\__//____/\__,_/_/==/_/==\___/_/===============
Return to September 1996
Return to “Will Rodger <rodger@interramp.com>”