[SC-Help] Re: Your basic blank msg...retry...

[Jeff G.]

On 6/14/2005 10:42 PM WazoO scribbled:

> "Jeff G." <anon at coks.net> wrote in message
> news:d8ocqj$5lb$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> 
>>Tnx, Blamo, but that isn't the problem.  I just didn't know that one
>>could add to the body, altho it would seem that this site could deal
>>with such moronic spam - its been around for at least a year or so...
> 
> 
> Seems very odd having to explain things to a long-time user and
> Forum Moderator, but will go along that the posting ID is just a
> coincidence .... spam constructs have always been an issue.  Your
> amazement that the parser can't handle such a 'simple' issue is
> actually by design.  You have to look at things from the other side.
> 
> Spammers play games.  There is more than one e-mail server
> application out there.  There is more than one e-mail client
> application in use 'out there' ... User knowledge and experience
> ranges from ancient guru to 'just bought my first computer an
> hour ago" .... Let's pick a nice round number of 100 spam
> submittals a second coming in.
> 
> Somehow, the parsing engine must decide;
> 
> header complete, RFC compliant, actually valid content?
> is there a blank line to separate the header and body?
> is there a body?  if so, plain text, HTML, Base-64, .ZIP file, ..???
> are there any attachments?  if so, encoding, file type, etc.????
> oh wait, is this a user submittal with a dozen spams attached?
> maybe now, the parser might pass it on to the look-up tools ..??
> 
> Problems in the above?  Was it due to ...
> spammer construct,
> e-mail server configuration issue
> e-mail transmission issue
> e-mail client issue
> user hosed something up in a cut/paste/add as attachment/Forward
> lightening strike in Timbuktu tossed some trash on the line somewhere
> 
> I'm not even going to go near the actual "let's process
> the sucker" part of the marvel ...  even the above doesn't
> try to touch everything .. just trying to suggest that if
> there is any "surprise" it probably ought to be that it
> works as well as it does ...
> 
> 
point taken...probably should have put it differently, but no SC bashing
intended.  Simple was definitely not the word to use.
That 1 short piece of spam gave me a bit of trouble...