Scribe, ut possis cum voles dicere: dices cum velle debebis (Pl. Ep. 6.29)

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Vegan Spam

Here you go:

X-Gmail-Received: af5da61812e6f0b5e7f7133d607317213a97b783
Received: by with SMTP id a15cs102679qbs;
        Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t18mr336896nfj;
        Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <?WORD??WORD?@?mail_domain?>
Received: from F246A7D4ECFC4A2 ([])
        by with ESMTP id r33si415786nfc.2006.;
        Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: fail
Message-ID: <36781866608732.A3D0FB1D07@5MVMO>
To: <>
Subject: {}NEW} {STOCK_2}
Date: {DATE}
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Thread-Index: {ALNUM[36-36]}
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


It gives a peek into the spammers' inner systems. {}NEW} {STOCK_2}, {BODY}, {_WORD){WORD)@{MAIL_DOMAIN} are probably templates, placeholders for actual values and something went wrong in their processing. The actual message that i received was blank.

Also, it was sent by Microsoft Office Outlook. Is Outlook efficient enough to process spam? Or is it fake?

No comments: