Opinion on X-AntiAbuse: headers?

Julian Field MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Wed Apr 16 22:42:40 IST 2008

Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unverified key: 04/16/08 at 22:13:23
> Hi,
> This might be pushing the boundry of being on or off-topic.
Since when did that stop anyone? :-)
> But does anyone know when valid email actually contain X-AntiAbuse: 
> headers?
When a non-spammer puts them in by mistake? They certainly aren't worth 
the 0's and 1's they are written in.
> So far (2 years now) I have only seen them in spam and never in legit
> traffic. I think over 90% of the times it is a poorly managed website
> with some broken email script.
They may actually be a good indication of spam. Ask the SA folks what 
they think.


Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store

MailScanner customisation, or any advanced system administration help?
Contact me at Jules at Jules.FM

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
PGP public key: http://www.jules.fm/julesfm.asc

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list