From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,212a8e12b16ecb51 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-31 14:19:44 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed2.easynews.net!easynews.net!news.cid.net!news.enyo.de!news1.enyo.de!not-for-mail From: Florian Weimer Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Gibberish posts Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:37:50 +0200 Organization: Enyo's not your organization Message-ID: <87itg893v5.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> References: <3b656a4c.22572607@news.geccs.gecm.com> <9k70hg$j35$1@mochi.lava.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10895 Date: 2001-07-31T23:37:50+02:00 List-Id: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > Are you saying the Complaints header was forged as well ? You should use the X-Complaints-To: header only if you know the posting was injected at a well-maintained server (so the header is quite pointless), and Hipcrime attacks usually don't involve such servers, I think. However, in the past, path exclusions worked quite well against Hipcrime, and going after the upstream provider or the peers was sometimes successful, too. (However, I've seen Hipcrime only in de.*, and it might be somewhat different in the Big8, who knows.)