heh
>but there's another thing it might be, a joe-job[1].
>considering some of the addresses in the bounce it sure
>looks pretty spammy. (but i didn't so an exhaustive
>analysis either.) but it could be BOTH a joe-job and a
>worm. there are rumors around that some spammers have
>started using worms to carry their spam payload to
>vulnerable peecees and then launching spam runs from them,
>just script kiddies doing their DDOS's.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2987558.stm
something like that?
hey, Michael, btw, I'm glad you came around on the spam thing! :)
kelley