Personally I believe in obfuscation... The less the spooks know the
   better including knowing of your evasion by taunting them (depends on
   what your trying to accomplish I guess). For browsers like firefox
   there's IPFuck and a user-agent string changer that allows one to spoof
   another browser or create a "Could be mutt but fucked if I'm telling
   you" string. Must be some tool like that for mail user-agents.
   [1]https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/blend-in/
   Also see: [2]https://sourceforge.net/projects/emspoofer/
   Rr

   On 06/08/2016 04:02 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

I know, I know, this is wildly off topic for this list, but I dare to ask:

Dear Dolly, I note that many punky punks round these parts use their MUA
du journk, yet happily advertise (of course falsely) their MUA User-Agent
name and version (due to the default header config which does as much).

Of course everyone round these parts is perfectly aware of such matters
and has long ago manually modified such string to discretely lead any
would be infiltrator astray. Such significant information so many people
give away, "presently company excluded" of course... :)

So, can anyone tell me of known spam filters or "outright rejection"
filters in any known mail server configurations/ setups, which would
reject an email header such as:

  User-Agent: Could be mutt but fucked if I'm telling you.

Is it better to simply not include such a header?

Or is it better to do the sly "make it look genuine but it's not" number?

Better is a purely objective assessment of course with no rune for
alternative threat models or other subjective quasi quagmires...

Confused,
Z

P.S. Thank you my gracious and all knowing lords of the crypto best
practices paddfock. May we romp in freedom with daisies to save the world,
as I've heard love and light is all powerful and will save us all.

References

   1. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/blend-in/
   2. https://sourceforge.net/projects/emspoofer/