Re: Obvious manipulation of e-mail headers - what good are they?
From: George Hester (hesterloli_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 04/29/05
- Next message: Roland Hall: "Re: Nopir-B worm..."
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Root CA Certificate vs Client Cert Expiration"
- In reply to: N. Miller: "Re: Obvious manipulation of e-mail headers - what good are they?"
- Next in thread: Karl Levinson, mvp: "Re: Obvious manipulation of e-mail headers - what good are they?"
- Reply: Karl Levinson, mvp: "Re: Obvious manipulation of e-mail headers - what good are they?"
- Reply: N. Miller: "Re: Obvious manipulation of e-mail headers - what good are they?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:31:46 -0400
I did not post all the headers because that was not necessary for my point. But if you want them here they are I don't see how the rest of them say anything about the %RANDOMIZATION% that is being used here:
Return-path: <iheskhfcbe@action.com.au>
Received: from ms-mta-03 (ms-mta-03-smtp [10.10.4.10])
by ms-mss-01.nyroc.rr.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.04 (built Feb 8 2005))
with ESMTP id <0IFM003G4Y3VVL@ms-mss-01.nyroc.rr.com>; Wed,
27 Apr 2005 22:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from orngca-mx-03.mgw.rr.com
(orngca-mx-03.mgw.rr.com [66.75.160.130]) by ms-mta-03.nyroc.rr.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.04 (built Feb 8 2005))
with ESMTP id <0IFM00L0XY19O9@ms-mta-03.nyroc.rr.com>; Wed,
27 Apr 2005 22:39:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 84-121-165-206.onocable.ono.com (84.121.165.206)
by orngca-mx-03.mgw.rr.com with SMTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:40:28 -0400
Received: from %STATIC_3WORD
(IMLI-852-880.%S_1FROM_DOMAIN [%LIST_IP] (may be forged))
by %STATIC_2WORD.%S_1FROM_DOMAIN (MOS 3.3.6-GR)
with ESMTP id DLT75284 (AUTH %STATIC_3WORD-02) ; Thu,
28 Apr 2005 01:37:32 -0200 (IST)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:39:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by ms-mta-03.nyroc.rr.com
From: Martha Peck <iheskhfcbe@action.com.au>
Subject: Message subject
To: dverdow@nycap.rr.com
Message-id: <3kmqqq$ehe806@orngca-mx-03.mgw.rr.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
My point being this allows the ISP of the spammer to deny they are part of the problem. Call it a rant if you choose some rants are true you know.
-- George Hester _________________________________ "N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1cdac7b495795dc398a804@msnews.microsoft.com... > In article <Obat3G#SFHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Karl Levinson, mvp > says... > > > I think the problem is whatever software you > > are using to try to get the SMTP headers... either it isn't giving you the > > entire headers, or you have to figure out how to access them. > > I don't think the OP had a problem finding the complete headers. He > mentioned that he was posting "partial" headers. I think he went wrong in > expecting every "Received: from * by *" header to be truthful; or, perhaps > more likely, just ranting because those headers can be so easily forged. > > -- > Norman > ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta > ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain > ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
- Next message: Roland Hall: "Re: Nopir-B worm..."
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Root CA Certificate vs Client Cert Expiration"
- In reply to: N. Miller: "Re: Obvious manipulation of e-mail headers - what good are they?"
- Next in thread: Karl Levinson, mvp: "Re: Obvious manipulation of e-mail headers - what good are they?"
- Reply: Karl Levinson, mvp: "Re: Obvious manipulation of e-mail headers - what good are they?"
- Reply: N. Miller: "Re: Obvious manipulation of e-mail headers - what good are they?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
