From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Mail setup broken (still/again?) |
Date: | 2007-10-16 17:19:35 |
Message-ID: | 20542.1192555175@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
> --On Tuesday, October 16, 2007 18:46:28 +0200 Magnus Hagander
> <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> 4902 <BritneysBoudreaux(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
>>> 933 <CarrolljeffreyTyler(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
>>> 876 <EvanoctagonBall(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
>>> 863 <ErikasegregatePhipps(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
>>> 848 <JeremiahanthraciteCurry(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
>>> 845 <JenniehabitualMeade(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
>>> 805 <KipmoliereRocha(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
>>> 801 <GwendolynsolonWeston(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
>>> 793 <AngeliqueshipwreckZapata(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
>>> 788 <OlliedaggerJuarez(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
>> I wonder how the hell they come up with those... I mean, what's the
>> percentage that they exist at all. I can understand those that fake
>> bill@ and joe@ and such addresses, but this...
I've seen a fair amount of spam that has forged return addresses that
look like those. I'm thinking that spammer A's name-generator has
fooled spammer B's address-harvester ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2007-10-16 17:23:50 | Re: Mail setup broken (still/again?) |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-10-16 17:17:57 | Re: Mail setup broken (still/again?) |