Re: Mail setup broken (still/again?)

> --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