Yahoo responds in the positive

[Pop`]

Read all about it, here:

[nailshooter41]

group spam here have resulted in action; guess >they're paying attention after all. The other two of course just >got the boilerplate "not my job" responses.

Thanks for taking the time to do something about it. It is much easier to bitch than to work for solution, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time and made the effort to help keep this place a little cleaner.

Would you mind telling us how you did it, what you had to provide, and to whom you reported this in order to get results?

Robert

[Pop`]

If you go back to my original post, you'll see what I sent to them under their "Original Message Follows:" heading. In that case the complaint went to the address in the Header line:

-------------- X-Complaints-To: [e-mail] NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:11:20 +0000 (UTC)

-------------

That line is very hard to forge and 99.9% always correct in posts. They cut it, but I also pointed out the non-google spamsite in the post, and the fact that it appeared to be using a Google address for a drop box IIRC.

I see you're using OE6, so to get a look at that same data, simply put your cursor in the message and press CTRL-F3. You'll see the headers from my post, which are unforged of course, with the exception of my e-mail address.

In this case the spammer apparently didn't do much forging but in most cases there will be forgeries, especially in the From line and all the Header lines after the second Received line. Most of the Google spams and even a lot of the shaw.ca spams are like this. Never, ever trust the From or Return Path lines: They are very easy to forge and almost always are forged.

HTH Pop`

[nailshooter41]

SNIP of good info

cases there will be forgeries, >especially in the From line and all the

even a lot of the shaw.ca spams >are like this. Never, ever trust the From

Thanks Pop. I think I will join you when I can on turning these assbites in. I hope others will, too.

Robert