On 5 Jul 96 at 0:43, Albert Cahalan <albert@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> From: Bryn Paul Arnold Jones <bpaj@gytha.demon.co.uk>
> >
> > Well I got one about dieting (I said something about making fat
> > binaries that diet when they knew there host systems architecure),
> > and then got an email about dieting (a just send $xxx to this address,
> > and we'll send you instructions on dieting with out dieting ....).
diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet
diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet
diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet diet
> >
> > Well it was via the usenet gateway, so short of killing the gateway
> > for a while, there's not much the list management can do ....
> >
> > Anyone else getting larger than normal amounts of junk email ? (I've had
> > about 15 from 2 acounts in the last 2 months, from none in the last year
>
> Yes, lots. I think I must have said something about byte sex.
> I got ads for some porn CD company - of course now I'll just get more!
sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex
sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex
sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex
sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex
>
> I think the usenet gateway should strip (oh no...) out email
> addresses from the headers, and maybe add a .sig if no email
> address is found in the body (oh no...). Muck with any address
> found but leave it human readable: "albert at ccs.neu.edu".
>
> Then put 66235@some.linux.site in the headers so that appropriate
> flames can be automatically sent to the offenders. The random
> number in the address is to keep them from filtering out duplicates.
> Repeat offenders can be tracked using some kind of cache so that
> they get larger and larger chunks of /dev/urandom each time.
> (a first time offender may have just made a mistake with email)
>
>
>