🚀 go-pugleaf

I demand that Stuart Painting may, or may not, have written:

> In article <485B54630E%polaris@ursaminr.demon.com.uk>, Peter Smith
> <URL:mailto:polaris@ursaminr.demon.com.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > I've done that, but it's been done so it _appears_ to come from me, at least
> > as far as Junkmail is concerned, it _is_ from me. It's got me in the Return
> > Path, From and message IDs.
> > 
> > Here is the header.....
> > 
> > > Return-Path: <Giffy@ursaminr.demon.co.uk>
> > > Received: from saven.se (hal.saven.se [192.165.84.254])
> > > 	  by rly-zc04.mx.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
> > > 	  with ESMTP id MAA16649;
> > > 	  Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
> > > From: Giffy@ursaminr.demon.co.uk
> > > Received: from Mailhub by saven.se id SAA15610; Fri, 19 Jun 1998 18:06:46 
> > > +0200 (DFT)
> 
> Hold on... are you saying that !JunkMail identified *you* as the
> real sending site? Are you sure it didn't mention "saven.se"
> (which from those headers looks mighty suspicious...)
> 
> I am assuming that the *recipient* was an AOL customer.
> 
> stuart
> 

Because "saven.se" isn't in the database of !Junkmail v1 (I've never heard
of them) it would only complain to "postmaster@saven.se" if it can't find
any complaint addresses that *are* in its database.
Abuse@demon.net is in the database, so it only complains there.


As it happens, !Junkmail2 (which is almost ready to start beta testing),
handles this a lot better, choosing to complain to "postmaster@saven.se"
with confidence score 200, and offering "abuse@demon.net" as an alternative
with confidence score 25, which is below the default confidence threshold of
60.


-- 
Mike Williams