From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Feb 11 18:25:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mobile.wemm.org (c1315225-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [65.0.135.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD33D37B401; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:25:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mobile.wemm.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1C2PAU43817; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:25:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Message-Id: <200102120225.f1C2PAU43817@mobile.wemm.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Robert Watson Cc: Drew Derbyshire , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Postfix and Majordomo security (was FreeBSD Ports Security Advisory: FreeBSD-SA-01:INSERT_NUMBER_HERE) In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:25:10 -0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Robert Watson wrote: > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > Regarding spam, the thought just occurred to me that we can catch a lot > > of it by checking that the list name appears in a To: or CC: line > > somewhere. eg: If mail to -current does not have > > '.*current@freebsd.org' in the To: or CC: line (most spam has got > > fakeuser@hotmail.com or something), then bounce it. > > Hmm. I kind of liked being able to Bcc: lists, especially given that > (last I checked) we had some magic somewhere to bound cross-posts. Naturally. But I personally would rather being able to catch nearly all of the remainder of the spam. :-) The inconvenience of not being able to Bcc: would be (IMHO) a small price to pay. Besides: this would make life a little easier for the procmail folks if we could guarantee the headers were going to be there in To:/Cc:. Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message