«

Tappy Lappy wrote:

> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other contributos
> pose no problem. I am running XP.
> Should I be concerned.
> TIA
>
> Tappy

The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.

Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.

On 2009-05-25, VanguardLH <> wrote:
> Tappy Lappy wrote:
>
>> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
>> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other contributos
>> pose no problem. I am running XP.
>> Should I be concerned.
>> TIA
>>
>> Tappy
>
> The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
> sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
> those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.
>
> Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.

A Reply-To header is not a request for a reply by email; it's just the
address to which emails should be sent instead of the address in the From
header, if someone wants to start a private exchange.

The From header is in the standard 'overview' information from the
news-server, so is easy for spammers to collect automatically; the
Reply-To header is not usually in the 'overview' so it only appears if the
whole article, or the specified header from it, is downloaded. Spammers
are less likely to collect addresses from Reply-To headers because it's
too much bother.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Whiskers wrote:

> On 2009-05-25, VanguardLH <> wrote:
>> Tappy Lappy wrote:
>>
>>> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
>>> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other contributos
>>> pose no problem. I am running XP.
>>> Should I be concerned.
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> Tappy
>>
>> The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
>> sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
>> those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.
>>
>> Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.
>
> A Reply-To header is not a request for a reply by email; it's just the
> address to which emails should be sent instead of the address in the From
> header, if someone wants to start a private exchange.

The OP said, "I get this message when posting a reply". So the OP *was*
generating a reply. The OP wasn't just looking at the article but took
action on it. Are you saying there is no header that can be added, or a
value for a Usenet header be used, that won't result in the default
action for a reply resulting in composing an e-mail response (instead of
a Usenet post)?

It is also possible the OP clicked on the wrong button so he actually
chose to Reply by Email instead of Reply to Newsgroup (or whatever the
buttons are labeled).

> The From header is in the standard 'overview' information from the
> news-server, so is easy for spammers to collect automatically; the
> Reply-To header is not usually in the 'overview' so it only appears if the
> whole article, or the specified header from it, is downloaded. Spammers
> are less likely to collect addresses from Reply-To headers because it's
> too much bother.

Spammers don't have to collect anything if the poster willingly sends an
e-mail to them. Spammers have long used social engineering to get
willing victims to expose their e-mail address. Doesn't have to be a
spammer, either. Could be a malcontent that wants to energize spam,
phish, or other traffic at your mailbox or to send their own hate or
garbage mails to irritate you.

I wasn't discussing how spambots might harvest e-mails from Usenet
headers. Harvesting isn't involved when users willingly divulge their
e-mail address. Since the client is sending an e-mail instead of a
Usenet post, the e-mail address specified in their e-mail account
defined in the client gets used instead of the munged e-mail field in
the client's newsgroup account. While many users munge their e-mail
address or specify a bogus one (like me) in the e-mail address in the
account they use in their client to post to Usenet, they do not munge or
use bogus email addresses in the e-mail accounts defined within that
same client.

Tappy Lappy wrote:

> "VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
> news:gve13n$uao$...
>> Tappy Lappy wrote:
>>
>>> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
>>> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other
>>> contributos
>>> pose no problem. I am running XP.
>>> Should I be concerned.
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> Tappy
>>
>> The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
>> sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
>> those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.
>>
>> Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.
>>
> Hi, I thought that might be the case, pointed the fact out to him
> and low and behold I don't get the message anymore.
> In laymeas terms, could you please explain how it would work?
> Thank again.

Mike Easter came up with the header and value that can be used to get
your newsreader to initiate an email compose. Apparently using
"FollowUp-To: poster" will send your reply to the poster via e-mail. I
remember there was a way but never used it and Google wasn't being
cooperative.

On 2009-05-25, VanguardLH <> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2009-05-25, VanguardLH <> wrote:
>>> Tappy Lappy wrote:
>>>
>>>> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
>>>> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other contributos
>>>> pose no problem. I am running XP.
>>>> Should I be concerned.
>>>> TIA
>>>>
>>>> Tappy
>>>
>>> The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
>>> sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
>>> those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.
>>>
>>> Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.
>>
>> A Reply-To header is not a request for a reply by email; it's just the
>> address to which emails should be sent instead of the address in the From
>> header, if someone wants to start a private exchange.
>
> The OP said, "I get this message when posting a reply". So the OP *was*
> generating a reply. The OP wasn't just looking at the article but took
> action on it.

So it would seem. No argument from me about that. It hadn't occurred to
me that any other interpretation maight be made.

> Are you saying there is no header that can be added, or a
> value for a Usenet header be used, that won't result in the default
> action for a reply resulting in composing an e-mail response (instead of
> a Usenet post)?

Not at all. I am saying what I wrote - that a Reply-To header is not (as
you suggested) a request for a response by email.

My posts all have a Reply-To header in them. Did your newsreader program
try to send an email to that address when you posted your response? I
certainly don't seem to have received such an email - from you, or from
anyone else who responds to my newsgroup posts (unless they choose to do
it on purpose or by mistakenly hitting 'reply privately by email' instead
of or as well as 'post a public reply in the newsgroup[s]' or whatever).

..-----<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1036/rfc1036.html>
|
| 2.2. Optional Headers
| 2.2.1. Reply-To
| This line has the same format as "From". If present, mailed replies to the
| author should be sent to the name given here. Otherwise, replies are
| mailed to the name on the "From" line. (This does not prevent additional
| copies from being sent to recipients named by the replier, or on "To" or
| "Cc" lines.) The full name may be optionally given, in parentheses, as in
| the "From" line.
'-----

or, perhaps more clearly expressed:

..--<http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_UsenetMessageFormatandSpecialHeaders-2.htm>
| Reply-To:
| It is possible to reply back to a Usenet article author using e-mail,
| which by default goes to the address in the From: line. If this header is
| present, the address it contains is used instead of the default From:
| address.
'-----

The only 'official' usenet header that I'm aware of that can prompt an
email being sent to anyone, is Version:

..-----<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1036/rfc1036.html>
| 3. Control Messages
| 3.6. Version
| version (no arguments)
|
| The name and version of the software running on the local system is to be
| mailed back to the author of the message ("Reply-to" if present, otherwise
| "From").
'-----

I don't think I've ever seen that header in use - and I wouldn't expect
to, as it has no business being used in anything other than a 'control
message' which should not be propagated to end users (it's only of any
use to news-server admins) and shouldn't be recognised by normal
newsreader programs anyway.

> It is also possible the OP clicked on the wrong button so he actually
> chose to Reply by Email instead of Reply to Newsgroup (or whatever the
> buttons are labeled).

Some combined email and newsgroup programs can be confusing, and the
terminology isn't used consistently, so that sort of thing can happen -
but it would normally not only happen when responding to a particular
poster. So there may be a non-standard 'send a reply by email' request in
the headers of that poster's messages which the OP's program is trying to
cope with. Why that would invoke an 'address book' I don't know.

Or the messages concerned have 'binary' content which includes some sort
of executable, and the OP's newsreader is automatically decoding the
binary and trying to execute it. In which case the newsreader needs to
be re-configured to function more safely - or dumped in favour of a safer
program.

>> The From header is in the standard 'overview' information from the
>> news-server, so is easy for spammers to collect automatically; the
>> Reply-To header is not usually in the 'overview' so it only appears if the
>> whole article, or the specified header from it, is downloaded. Spammers
>> are less likely to collect addresses from Reply-To headers because it's
>> too much bother.
>
> Spammers don't have to collect anything if the poster willingly sends an
> e-mail to them. Spammers have long used social engineering to get
> willing victims to expose their e-mail address. Doesn't have to be a
> spammer, either. Could be a malcontent that wants to energize spam,
> phish, or other traffic at your mailbox or to send their own hate or
> garbage mails to irritate you.

There is no standard usenet header that can trick a person reading a
newsgroup, or the software they are using, into sending an email to
anyone (other than the Version header mentioned above, which shouldn't
appear in normal newsgroup posts at all - let alone get a reaction from a
newsreader program). But there may be 'non-standard' headers that might
have that effect on some programs.

> I wasn't discussing how spambots might harvest e-mails from Usenet
> headers. Harvesting isn't involved when users willingly divulge their
> e-mail address. Since the client is sending an e-mail instead of a
> Usenet post, the e-mail address specified in their e-mail account
> defined in the client gets used instead of the munged e-mail field in
> the client's newsgroup account. While many users munge their e-mail
> address or specify a bogus one (like me) in the e-mail address in the
> account they use in their client to post to Usenet, they do not munge or
> use bogus email addresses in the e-mail accounts defined within that
> same client.

I raised the matter of spam bots gathering email addresses from usenet
'overviews' to explain the difference between the 'Reply-To' header and
the 'From' header, and why some people use a Reply-To header.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

On 2009-05-26, Tappy Lappy <Tappy> wrote:
>
> "VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
> news:gvg4lh$hrh$...
>> Tappy Lappy wrote:
>>
>>> "VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
>>> news:gve13n$uao$...
>>>> Tappy Lappy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
>>>>> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other
>>>>> contributos
>>>>> pose no problem. I am running XP.
>>>>> Should I be concerned.
>>>>> TIA
>>>>>
>>>>> Tappy
>>>>
>>>> The poster to which you are replying requested that an e-mail copy get
>>>> sent to them. They added a Reply-To header. If your newsreader obeys
>>>> those headers, it will send an e-mail as requested.
>>>>
>>>> Someone is trying to ferret out your e-mail address.
>>>>
>>> Hi, I thought that might be the case, pointed the fact out to him
>>> and low and behold I don't get the message anymore.
>>> In laymeas terms, could you please explain how it would work?
>>> Thank again.
>>
>> Mike Easter came up with the header and value that can be used to get
>> your newsreader to initiate an email compose. Apparently using
>> "FollowUp-To: poster" will send your reply to the poster via e-mail. I
>> remember there was a way but never used it and Google wasn't being
>> cooperative.
>>
> Thanks for that - really appreciated.

<chuckle> you weren't the only one to learn something new )

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Whiskers wrote:
> Tappy Lappy

>> Thanks for that - really appreciated.
>
> <chuckle> you weren't the only one to learn something new )

This riddle was another that would have been quicker and easier to solve
'directly' if the OP qx were about the specific rather than a generic.

In the beginning, the question was:

Tappy Lappy wrote:
Subject: A programme is trying to access your address book
> I get this message when posting a reply on a newsgroup using Outlook
> express, but only when repling to one specific user. All other
> contributos pose no problem. I am running XP.

.... but if the specifics had been stated at the outset:

Subject: Addressbook alert
When replying to this news message (only) http://snipr.com/irmgo I'm
alerted that a program(me) is trying to access my addressbook. What is
going on?

.... or alternatively to express the inciting message by mid
<Xns9C15B1472116Epaulgexpertcanmore@199.185.223.74 > instead of the GG
link I used,


.... then it would not have been necessary to 'sleuth'/find the message
thread where the problem developed. It is almost always easier to focus
on the real issues of a problem when the actual *real* problem itself is
named/specified, rather than some 'generically' described problem (I call
the generic an 'imaginary' or hypothetical problem).

OTOH, I suppose the sleuthing is half the fun of the riddle


--
Mike Easter

As it turned out from other posts, its the "FollowUp-To: poster" and
Mail-To-Copies (although not ratified and perhaps not supported in all
newreaders) headers that tell the newsreader to compose an e-mail
instead of a Usenet post.

http://www.newsreaders.com/gnksa/gnksa.txt
4) Allow users to change essential headers
The software MUST allow the user to specify "Followup-To: poster", which
tells readers of the article that the user prefers e-mail replies rather
than followups to the newsgroup.

The "poster" keyword tells the news client to compose an e-mail. You
don't specify the e-mail address in the FollowUp-To header. Your news
client gets the e-mail address from the one you configured in your
client. It is unclear if the e-mail address from your news account gets
used when composing the e-mail. After all, you are sending an e-mail so
I suspect your client may use your e-mail address defined in the e-mail
account in your client. If your news client doesn't do e-mail then it
will have to pass the data to whatever is configured as your e-mail
client, and your e-mail address gets used from that e-mail client.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1036.txt
2.2.3 FollowUp-To
If the keyword poster is present, follow-up messages are not permitted.
The message should be mailed to the submitter of the message via mail.

http://www.newsreaders.com/misc/mail-copies-to.html
I think the Mail-Copies-To header was proposed but never accepted
although some clients will honor it.

On 2009-05-26, Mike Easter <> wrote:
> Whiskers wrote:
>> Tappy Lappy

[...]

> OTOH, I suppose the sleuthing is half the fun of the riddle

I think so; no-one here is obliged to give any more time of effort than
they feel like giving - and the detective work and guessing can be
educational too )

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Tappy Lappy wrote:

> It seems there is a difference of opinion amongst you guys but it is
> all going over my head. Is the header change something that "just
> happens" or does the person actually have to change it manually? Can
> the poster get my email address if he does change it, but in this
> case it didn't?

The poster would have to add the FollowUp-To header *AND* specify
"poster" for its value. Or the poster would have to add the
Mail-To-Copies header (and either he or his client add an e-mail
address for the value of the header). At some point, the poster
decided they wanted to get an e-mail reply to their post.

If you don't send the e-mail then how would the recipient know your
e-mail address from an e-mail that they never got?