Andrew 8)
p.s. Sorry for theshot yesterday Matt, but when I see
fish in a barrel, I just can't help myself.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darin
CoxSent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:42 AMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [D
You can read about or get your own version of the password
stealing app here:
http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/pspv.html
Andrew 8)
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 6:36
PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT:
another SOBERing though
Wow!
It's like 1995 - 2005 had never been.
:-|
ok, I must say I never worked with Declude Hijack. It's
not simply this what we need now?
Markus
Yes we are listening
David B
www.declude.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Serge
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:55 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: another SOBERing though
hijack
I was just thinking the same thing, that strictly going by
file name would not be best.
Well at least it would be ressource friendly.
Some thoughts:
Count attached file names but
1)ignore extensions like gif, jpg, pdf, ...
or alternatively look only for known risky extensions like zip,
@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT:
another SOBERing though
Wow!
It's like 1995 - 2005 had never been.
:-|
ok, I must say I never worked with Declude Hijack. It's
not simply this what we need now?
Markus
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
We are
all listening
Barry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck,
AndrewSent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:14 PMTo:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT:
another SOBERing though
It certainly does feel like deja vu all over
: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: another SOBERing though
We are all listening
Barry
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:14 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE
George,
Let's talk offline. I'll call you later.
Barry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of george
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 3:45 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: another SOBERing though
Barry
: [Declude.JunkMail] OT:
another SOBERing though
I
think one of the issues here is that Hijack was designed to solve a problem
that existed due to omission on the part of IMail, but being a separate app,
it might not be the most optimal method, though for now it definitely
is.Most
: [Declude.JunkMail] OT:
another SOBERing though
not sure how using port 587 will solve
this
cant the spammers/virus writers eventualy use
this port
why would that be a long term solution
?
- Original Message -
From:
Matt
To: Declude.JunkMail
17, 2005 11:31
PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT:
another SOBERing though
Serge, that's a misleading line of
reasoning.
Here's the thing:
Auth on port 587 is the right best practice for ISPs (and
some corporations) so that they can properly secure their MTA against
-
From:
Colbeck,
Andrew
To:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent:
Thursday, November 17, 2005 11:31 PM
Subject:
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: another SOBERing though
Serge, that's a misleading line
of reasoning.
Here's the thing:
Auth
So, we've seen the recent SOBER variants used their own SMTP engine to
propagate as well as a predefined list of usernames and passwords at
ISPs to send themselves.
We've also seen that keeping viruses and spam out of our mailboxes is
easier when we can identify the sender as a zombie, and that
Hmm, who would have thunk?
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Success
Date 12/24/2004 9:24 AM
http://www.mail-archive.com/declude.junkmail@declude.com/msg22584.html
IMO, the best way to stop forging is to stop zombie spammers. The way
to do this is FIRST implement port 587 as AUTH-only, and
Well Matt when I read the link I was figuring you were fessing up to
how far off you were [are] on SPF - it was only until I read the end
that I understood to what you were referring. :)
-Nick
Matt wrote:
Hmm, who would have thunk?
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Success
Date
:
Declude.JunkMail@declude.comSubject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT:
another SOBERing though
Well Matt when I read the link I was figuring you were fessing up
to how far off you were [are] on SPF - it was only until I read the end that I
understood to what you were referring. :)-NickMatt
;)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nick
Hayer
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 3:31 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: another SOBERing though
Well Matt when I read the link I was figuring you
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail]
OT: another SOBERing though
Nick, I thought at first that was the
shortest message Matt ever wrote... then I realized it was because he had the
luxury of quoting himself!
Andrew ;)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
into...
Darin.
-
Original Message -
From:
Matt
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: another SOBERing
though
Hmm, who would have thunk?
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SPF Success
Date
To: Declude.JunkMail@declude.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: another SOBERing
though
Darin,I would pretty much skip over #1 except for some
obvious things like not allowing the username to be the password, and having a
minimum length of 4 or more
21 matches
Mail list logo
