Subject: Re: SPAM Alert: Email Address Harvesting
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Flo <email@example.com>
Date: 01/04/2004 15:30:35
for me using
REJECT EXE, COM, BAT, PIF, SCR, OCX, VB* attachments are NOT
in Postfix header_check removes the problem of viruses and the high bandwith
they steal, although, sure, you have to make clear to users to rename
if they want to send .exe through the system. For me it's OK this way.
> Greg A. Woods wrote:
>>Nothing but directly attacking the problem of spam itself will help in
>>the long run.
> According to my logs, it isn't actual spam that is the problem,
> but Windows-based viruses that harvest email addresses from places
> such as this and just email (often unreadable) garbage. Though
> almost none of it gets through to mail accounts, it still takes up
> as much as 75% of my (low) bandwidth, which is more than just an
> I'm astonished that there hasn't been a class-action negligence
> lawsuit against Microsoft, given how many years the community has
> railed about the issue to MS and how easy it would have been to
> cut out 95% of it had they acted to prevent it many years ago.
> So even attacking the 'problem of spam' will likely not address
> this issue.