🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <see-1201981751500001@ids.vip.best.com>, see@my.sig (Kevin) wrote:

> In article <is.in-ya02408000R1201981429570001@news.ind.mh.se>,
> I wrote:
> 
> > In article <see-1001981233470001@ids.vip.best.com>, see@my.sig (Kevin)
wrote:
> > > Just set-up a filter that checks to make sure that the TO:, CC:, or BCC:
> > > has your actual e-mail address in it...anything else is trashed. 

> > If you filter out the To:, Cc:, and Bcc:, what's left?
> 
> Look at my statement again: it must *contain* my real address, which means
> if any of the fields contain it it gets through. I guess I should have
> made the "or" more explicit.

More explicit than right there in the sentence?

Surely the point about Bcc is that it contains your address but you can't
see it - hence it's a blind CC. Therefore you can't test to see whether
your address is in Bcc: because if you could do that then you could test to
see whether other addresses were in it, which would defeat the object of
Bcc. All you know is that it has reached you, and if your address is not in
To: or Cc: but it's in your mailbox, how exactly do you think it was
addressed? By Bcc: of course. And if it's reached you by Bcc (and not To:
or Cc:) it must have your real address in it. QED.

I also wrote:
> > At least it can't take you long to read your mail in the mornings. Me, I
> > prefer just killing unexpected Bcc:'s.
> 
> As for the sarcasm, it was really uncalled for...maybe a polite notice of
> your confusion would have worked better?

You call that sarcasm? I'd call it laconic irony. Sarcasm takes mental
effort. I wasn't confused, but I think you are. The Bcc field can't be
tested for its contents - at least it can't in Eudora, though I'm prepared
to be disabused about Claris Emailer (which seems to have lots of zippy
functions). 

Your original message also contained the lines..
> > SPAM has invalid TO:, CC:, and BCC:
> > fields (such things as "TO: everyone@aol.com" or "CC:
> > interested@people.net").

Two-thirds right. Spam often has invalid To: addresses (the most famous
being friend@public.com), sometimes invalid Cc: addresses. But the Bcc:
addresses are valid because otherwise it wouldn't be in your mailbox.

Spammers choose not to show you the recipients field because it would be
huge and interfere with you reading their "message". Typically, they set up
the Bcc: to be a huge string of addresses grabbed from Usenet. They telnet
to an open mail relay. They enter a fake ID, then the Subject line, fake
To: line, empty Cc: line, and then a huge stream of Bcc:, and then the
"content" of their "message". Your address is there in the Bcc. So it goes
to you, and a million other unwilling people.

> kevin at quosig dot com

> "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
>  Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."

Hmm. I don't think I misunderstood you, I think you misunderstood the process.

   Charles
-- 
The Independent on the Web: http://www.independent.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UK climbing: http://www.eclimb.com/ukclimb/         Neutrons for old!

Email with the subject line "Walls list please" for the latest list of UK
climbing walls (125K text file attachment)
                                           
Email with the subject line "sick of spam" for my (free!) advice on
avoiding and autokilling >95% of junk mail.