On Jun 7, 2009, at 2:50 AM, F. Senault wrote:

> Le 7 juin 2009 04:31, James Gray a ñÄrit :
>
>> On Jun 6, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:
>
>>> Leaving the NNTP Received headers in will help us trace spam to its
>>> origin.
>
> Heh.  I answered to that in a previous message... which wasn't  
> accepted
> by the mailing-list software and correctly propagated...
>
> So, I said that there's a path header instead, and a bunch of relevant
> headers, notably for the web-news gateways (i.e. google groups) ;  
> here's
> a sample of the headers usenet-side for one of the last spams :
>
> (I'll try pastie instead of pasting the raw headers...)
>
> http://www.pastie.org/503343
>
> I just broke down the long headers ; the path is always on one (longine.

Thanks for the suggestions.

>> Fred, do you happen to know if I could legally do that?  Are they
>> speced the same?  I will look when I have a less crazy day, but was
>> just curious if you would know.
>
> The question is moot : you don't have the same headers on one side or
> the other, meaning you could put the path in the mail messages and the
> received's in the usenet messages (which wouldn't be the worse idea,
> IMHO).

OK, I can do that.

I need to rewrite the news_to_mail.rb side of the gateway first  
though.  I've converted the mail_to_news.rb code to be tmail based  
which makes it super easy to do stuff like move over a bunch of  
headers.  However, the news_to_mail.rb side is still the old Regexp  
based code I inherited.  If I update it first, this will be a lot  
easier.

So, request received.  It's a little work though and my summer is  
pretty insanely busy.  Please be patient with me if it takes me a bit  o get to it.

Thanks for all the suggestion everyone.

James Edward Gray II