[SpamCop-List] Re: Blank spams aren't blank: RFC822 mangling (JT) !

[Bruce A. Johnson]

"David Butler" <ob1db at spamcop.net> wrote in
news:c4319n$t1j$1 at news.spamcop.net: 

> Have been posting to the NG with no response, so will try posting to
> forum as well. MANY "Blank " emails are not blank!
> 
> Here is an example of what I call Type II (type one having no subject
> or body), where there are major RFC822 errors inn the headers,
> resulting in a garbled x-info line that incluses 1 or 2 received lines
> (which rarely parse, even when the needed indents are added) the
> to/from/subject and all the other relevant headers on one line. They
> display as no subject and invalid address. Only view message source in
> SPamcop Webmail shows what is really there.
> 
< . . . snip.>

I've been getting more and more of these everyday.  In the last 24 hours, 
I received 17 of these spams with the headers not parsed properly.

Spammers have really found a good way to get away with spamming with 
these un-parsed headers.  SpamCop won't do anything with them the way 
they are.

I've been editing them to parse the headers to report them, but I'm 
really getting sick of having to do so.

I'm wondering why e-mail servers are passing along these, since the 
headers are not parsed.

I only use my spamcop address, and luckily SpamCop is holding almost all 
of these spams.

To repeat . . . . I'm getting SICK of manually parsing these spams to 
report them.

-  Bruce A. Johnson in Hardisty, Alberta, Canada
-  Windrider6 at SpamCop.net