Spammer harvesting info-cyrus list

[Lee Sanders]

Way off topic but within 24 hours of posting to this list using a unique
email address someone is spamming it with the nigerian bank scam.

Just an FYI if anyone is interested, be aware that this list is being
actively harvested.

Regards,
Lee Sanders
Systems Engineer


Received: by lita (Mon Apr 14 21:12:41 2003)
X-From_: yvk2k at netscape.net Mon Apr 14 17:04:11 2003
Return-path: <yvk2k at netscape.net>
Envelope-to: cyrus-337 at ccp.com.au
Received: from node-d-f45c.a2000.nl ([62.195.244.92]
   helo=lita.indigo.net.au) by lita.ccp.com.au with smtp (Exim 3.35) id
194zsp-0003OS-00 for <cyrus-337 at ccp.com.au>; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:04:11
+0800
From: "NETHERLANDS" <yvk2k at netscape.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:03:42
To: cyrus-337 at ccp.com.au
Subject: PRIVATE
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E194zsp-0003OS-00 at lita.ccp.com.au>

FROM: NETHERLANDS


Dear friend,

You may be surprised to receive this letter from me since you do not
know me personally. I am the first son of the most popular black farmer
in Zimbabwe who was murdered in the land dispute in my country. I got
your contact through network online hence decided to write you. Before
the death of my father, he had taken me to Johannesburg to deposit the
sum of USD7.Million (seven million United States dollars), in one of the
private security company, as he foresaw the looming danger in Zimbabwe.
This money was deposited in a box as gem stones to avoid much demurrage
from Security Company.


On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 20:44, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Phil Howard wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 06:02:12PM -0400, Ken Murchison wrote:
> > 
> > | Phil Howard wrote:
> > | >
> > | > On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 12:29:31PM -0400, Ken Murchison wrote:
> > | >
> > | > | Phil Howard wrote:
> > | > | >
> > | > | > Cross department domain sharing.  Different departments would have
> > | > | > their own domain names, but in some cases that sharing would go between
> > | > | > specific people in different departments, hence different domains.
> > | > |
> > | > | Well, most of the code to do this is already there.  The complication
> > | > | arises when trying to deal with users in the defaultdomain (unqualified
> > | > | userids) and how to handle 'anyone' and 'anonymous' (how to
> > | > | differentiate between anyone in a domain or anyone regardless of
> > | > | domain.)
> > | >
> > | > I would presume a reference to a user w/o any domain qualification would
> > | > (or should) have the same effect as logging in w/o any domain.  Whether
> > | > that gets mapped to an actual domain, or simply accesses name hierarchy
> > | > that has no domain, would be a detail.
> > | >
> > | > As for 'anyone' and 'anonymous' I'm not sure what to do.  I can see that
> > | > one might assume when written w/o a domain that they apply to the same
> > | > domain, as opposed to the default domain.
> > |
> > |
> > | I thought about this some more while watching the golf, and I'm slowly
> > | starting to recall more of the issues.  The biggest hurdle (as was the
> > | case with altnamespace, unixhiersep and virtdomains) is LIST/LSUB.  If
> > | we allow users to see mailboxes in other domains, how do these get
> > | presented to the client?  What does the namespace look like?  Should we
> > | make it optional? (LIST performance will suck if we have to iterate
> > | through the entire mailbox list regardless of domain)
> > 
> > I can't answer that in terms of the current way it is done.  But had it
> > been done the way I was originally thinking, then it might have worked
> > like this:
> > 
> > host.com_example.user.tom -> becomes INBOX when login as tom at example.com
> > 
> > Then tom at example.com can see tom at example.net by some reference that
> > works out to -> host.net_example.user.tom
> > 
> > I'm sure there are many other ways to do it.  But now that a mapping of
> > user at fqdn is established, I guess you're stuck with it.
> 
> 
> Huh?  I think you might be missing my point.  I _can_ provide the
> functionality that you want in the server, the question is how to fit
> this into the IMAP protocol itself.  I'm not going to explain all of the
> issues in detail, if you care you can read RFC 3501 and RFC 2342 and
> look at the source.