New worm and RR How does this get thru?

[J Thinkpad]

Can someone tell me how this gets into my inbox when it is sent to a generic
RR address?
***@san.rr.com is not my address but it sure makes it into my inbox. Along
with several other new worms!
Is Time Warner forcing me to use AOL to stop this? I did try the RR download
and it was great for a year until my "free" download required money now...
Any answers?
J.



Return-path: <***@istar.ca>
Received: from ms-mta-03.socal.rr.com
(ms-mta-03-smtp.socal.rr.com [10.10.4.127]) by ms-mss-04.socal.rr.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.04 (built Feb 8 2005))
with ESMTP id <***@ms-mss-04.socal.rr.com> for
Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from flmx04.mgw.rr.com (flmx04.mgw.rr.com [65.32.1.49])
by ms-mta-03.socal.rr.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.04 (built Feb 8 2005))
with ESMTP id <***@ms-mta-03.socal.rr.com> for (ORCPT Tue, 22
Nov 2005 16:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clmboh-mx-08.mgw.rr.com (clmboh-mx-08.mgw.rr.com
[65.24.7.62])
by flmx04.mgw.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jAN0GPJS022039; Tue,
22 Nov 2005 19:18:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from w-c1s3-2.nytwr.tor.fcibroadband.com (HELO iuuimshq.ca)
(66.146.131.130) by clmboh-mx-08.mgw.rr.com with SMTP; Tue,
22 Nov 2005 19:17:48 -0500
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:11:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: ***@istar.ca
Subject: Paris Hilton & Nicole Richie
To: ***@san.rr.com
Message-id: <***@istar.ca>
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
X-Virus-Scan-Result: Repaired 17534 ***@mm
Original-recipient: rfc822;***@san.rr.com
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.1.362 [267.13.5/178]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="======2c19c4a2.fadc32e49ddfbc"

[[e-mail]]

Post by J Thinkpad
Can someone tell me how this gets into my inbox when it is sent to a generic
RR address?
with several other new worms!
Is Time Warner forcing me to use AOL to stop this? I did try the RR download
and it was great for a year until my "free" download required money now...
Any answers?
J.

The "to:" address on an email header is just a nicety, and doesn't
really have anything to do with the actual routing of a message. The
"To:" address(es) aren't even necessarily actual recipients of the
message. Sometimes, intermediate servers will add an "apparently to"
advisory message on the "Received:" header they add.

You were undoubtedly designated as a recipient of the message, but as a
"blind cc" ("bcc:"), which means that you're a recipient, but the
sender's email client doesn't add a "to:" or "cc:" header containing
your address.

[J Thinkpad]

Ok , I agree with that. But, why can't RR stop this crap??

Post by J Thinkpad
Can someone tell me how this gets into my inbox when it is sent to a
generic RR address?
Along with several other new worms!
Is Time Warner forcing me to use AOL to stop this? I did try the RR
download and it was great for a year until my "free" download required
money now...
Any answers?
J.

The "to:" address on an email header is just a nicety, and doesn't really
have anything to do with the actual routing of a message. The "To:"
address(es) aren't even necessarily actual recipients of the message.
Sometimes, intermediate servers will add an "apparently to" advisory
message on the "Received:" header they add.
You were undoubtedly designated as a recipient of the message, but as a
"blind cc" ("bcc:"), which means that you're a recipient, but the sender's
email client doesn't add a "to:" or "cc:" header containing your address.

[Damian]

Post by J Thinkpad
Ok , I agree with that. But, why can't RR stop this crap??

Post by ***@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org

Post by J Thinkpad
Can someone tell me how this gets into my inbox when it is sent to a
generic RR address?
inbox. Along with several other new worms!
Is Time Warner forcing me to use AOL to stop this? I did try the RR
download and it was great for a year until my "free" download
required money now...
Any answers?
J.

The "to:" address on an email header is just a nicety, and doesn't
really have anything to do with the actual routing of a message. The
"To:" address(es) aren't even necessarily actual recipients of
the message. Sometimes, intermediate servers will add an "apparently
to" advisory message on the "Received:" header they add.
You were undoubtedly designated as a recipient of the message, but
as a "blind cc" ("bcc:"), which means that you're a recipient, but
the sender's email client doesn't add a "to:" or "cc:" header
containing your address.

Wrong question. Roadrunner _CAN_ stop it, they just don't care. You should
ask, "why won't RR stop this crap?"

[[e-mail]]

Post by J Thinkpad
Ok , I agree with that. But, why can't RR stop this crap??

Better question: Why *SHOULD* RR get involved in this? Is it SBC's
responsibility to stop telemarketing or heavy-breathing telephone calls
to you? No. So why do people think it's an ISP's responsibility to
stop incoming spam and viruses??

ISPs should be responsible only for stopping outgoing spam and viruses
that are in violation of their TOS.

I do NOT want anyone screwing around with my incoming email.

If an ISP wants to offer an *OPTIONAL* way to turn on a spam or virus
filter of some sort, that's fine. I could even live with an opt-out
filter. But a paternalistic, everyone-needs-filtering policy is out of
line.

[Bill]

In article <qN1hf.46696$***@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
***@bigfoot.com says...


Right On

My anti-virus program picked up a probable virus this morning, and
notified me of the problem. This is a anti-virus program that uses
hueristics and stated "Warning: NOD32 antivirus system found the
following in the message:

Androwe.zip - probably unknown NewHeur_PE virus - deleted
Androwe.zip > ZIP > 1.exe - probably unknown NewHeur_PE virus

This a good anti-virus program at work, and like you, I don't want
anyone messing with me e-mail.

(The anti-virus program is NOD32, which I have been running for several
years now. Never had a virus as long as it was loaded.

Post by ***@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org

Post by J Thinkpad
Ok , I agree with that. But, why can't RR stop this crap??

Better question: Why *SHOULD* RR get involved in this? Is it SBC's
responsibility to stop telemarketing or heavy-breathing telephone calls
to you? No. So why do people think it's an ISP's responsibility to
stop incoming spam and viruses??
ISPs should be responsible only for stopping outgoing spam and viruses
that are in violation of their TOS.
I do NOT want anyone screwing around with my incoming email.
If an ISP wants to offer an *OPTIONAL* way to turn on a spam or virus
filter of some sort, that's fine. I could even live with an opt-out
filter. But a paternalistic, everyone-needs-filtering policy is out of
line.

[Scott Lindner]

Post by ***@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org
Better question: Why *SHOULD* RR get involved in this? Is it SBC's
responsibility to stop telemarketing or heavy-breathing telephone calls to
you? No. So why do people think it's an ISP's responsibility to stop
incoming spam and viruses??

One could argue that since the ISPs are choosing to use SMTP based mail
protocols that they are indeed responsible for it since they are not
embracing better protocols and try their darned hardest to ensure you can't
provide for yourself as well. If they played by *all* of the rules, then
your point would be right.

Of course, I don't care since I don't use my RR accounts. I don't even know
what the email address is and have never used it. Yet when I log into my
account to humor myself I have lots of SPAM sitting in it. How? Because
SPAMmers are guessing email addresses with the big ISPs. Sucks to be all of
us that rely on TWC for email. You're screwed when it comes to SPAM.