Got Nigerian style spam yesterday with the email address ><mailto:[email protected]>. Almost. Should probably use
"Pyramid scheme" next time. *g*
--
Andreas
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
Got Nigerian style spam yesterday with the email address >><mailto:[email protected]>. Almost. Should probably use
"Pyramid scheme" next time. *g*
What headers do you see?
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:08:57 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
Got Nigerian style spam yesterday with the email address >>><mailto:[email protected]>. Almost. Should probably use >>>"Pyramid scheme" next time. *g*
What headers do you see?
Typical 419 scam via Gmail. I think it was in the Reply-To:, while the
From: had another Gmail address. Both are most likely valid, although the >spammer might not check the From: address.
--
Andreas
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:08:57 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
Got Nigerian style spam yesterday with the email address >>>><mailto:[email protected]>. Almost. Should probably use >>>>"Pyramid scheme" next time. *g*
What headers do you see?
Typical 419 scam via Gmail. I think it was in the Reply-To:, while the >>From: had another Gmail address. Both are most likely valid, although the >>spammer might not check the From: address.
Will Gmail axe this abuser?
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:35:37 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:08:57 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
Got Nigerian style spam yesterday with the email address >>>>><mailto:[email protected]>. Almost. Should probably use >>>>>"Pyramid scheme" next time. *g*
What headers do you see?
Typical 419 scam via Gmail. I think it was in the Reply-To:, while the >>>From: had another Gmail address. Both are most likely valid, although the >>>spammer might not check the From: address.
Will Gmail axe this abuser?
No. Google stopped caring to remove their own spammers two or three years ago.
--
Andreas
In article <1pwlqu2.grlnwwt0hfzeN%[email protected]>,
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
The Doctor <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:35:37 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:08:57 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
Got Nigerian style spam yesterday with the email address
<mailto:[email protected]>. Almost. Should probably use
"Pyramid scheme" next time. *g*
What headers do you see?
Typical 419 scam via Gmail. I think it was in the Reply-To:, while
the From: had another Gmail address. Both are most likely valid,
although the spammer might not check the From: address.
Will Gmail axe this abuser?
No. Google stopped caring to remove their own spammers
two or three years ago.
More reason why gamil should be bit-bucketed.
*@gmail is a perfectly acceptable email address. You should k/f on >'User-Agent: G2/1.0' instead; that's the Google Groups posting agent.
We are takling e-mail not newsgroups.
The Doctor <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:35:37 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:08:57 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
Got Nigerian style spam yesterday with the email address
<mailto:[email protected]>. Almost. Should probably use
"Pyramid scheme" next time. *g*
What headers do you see?
Typical 419 scam via Gmail. I think it was in the Reply-To:, while the
From: had another Gmail address. Both are most likely valid, although the >> >>>spammer might not check the From: address.
Will Gmail axe this abuser?
No. Google stopped caring to remove their own spammers
two or three years ago.
More reason why gamil should be bit-bucketed.
*@gmail is a perfectly acceptable email address. You should k/f on >'User-Agent: G2/1.0' instead; that's the Google Groups posting agent.
--
^�^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
~ Slava Ukraini ~
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:35:37 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:08:57 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
Got Nigerian style spam yesterday with the email address >>>>><mailto:[email protected]>. Almost. Should probably use >>>>>"Pyramid scheme" next time. *g*
What headers do you see?
Typical 419 scam via Gmail. I think it was in the Reply-To:, while the >>>From: had another Gmail address. Both are most likely valid, although the >>>spammer might not check the From: address.
Will Gmail axe this abuser?
No. Google stopped caring to remove their own spammers
two or three years ago.
More reason why gamil should be bit-bucketed.
The Doctor <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <1pwlqu2.grlnwwt0hfzeN%[email protected]>,
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
The Doctor <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 00:35:37 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:08:57 -0000 (UTC), The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Andreas Kohlbach <[email protected]> wrote:
Got Nigerian style spam yesterday with the email address
<mailto:[email protected]>. Almost. Should probably use
"Pyramid scheme" next time. *g*
What headers do you see?
Typical 419 scam via Gmail. I think it was in the Reply-To:, while
the From: had another Gmail address. Both are most likely valid,
although the spammer might not check the From: address.
Will Gmail axe this abuser?
No. Google stopped caring to remove their own spammers
two or three years ago.
More reason why gamil should be bit-bucketed.
*@gmail is a perfectly acceptable email address. You should k/f on
'User-Agent: G2/1.0' instead; that's the Google Groups posting agent.
We are takling e-mail not newsgroups.
Apologies, I'd forgotten that. However, plonking in email is a local >decision that doesn't affect other sites. Not that it matters to me,
I'll just assume that you don't want email from me.
--
^�^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
~ Slava Ukraini ~
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 56:19:55 |
| Calls: | 12,117 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,664 |