Rbl
Hi guys, A friend has a problem with rbl. The address is rbl.kropka.net. The company's ip address was added in this list some time ago, before he started working there. Now he fixed the problems with the mail server and would like to remove his company's address from the blacklist. So the rbl site hasnt email contact to remove the ip from the blacklist. Anyone can help me? -- Thiago Ribeiro Support Analist Fatea, Lorena - SP Tel: (12) 31532888 - Ramal 241 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rbl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thiago Ribeiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:25:45 -0300: Hi guys, A friend has a problem with rbl. The address is rbl.kropka.net. The company's ip address was added in this list some time ago, before he started working there. Now he fixed the problems with the mail server and would like to remove his company's address from the blacklist. So the rbl site hasnt email contact to remove the ip from the blacklist. Anyone can help me? how about writing a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the person answering that mailbox should at least know who to contact for this issue. sven - -- http://www.tuxhilfe.de/ - Linux Hilfe und Support Forum sven at tuxhilfe dot de -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFELUun3Fv/ndb4AqsRArCaAJ92Q1uLo8oyYmohrXgEt1oZwSTD1ACgvwkv Kf4UQl39YFubJS/RW7k00nw= =dvoy -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rbl
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:25:45AM -0300, Thiago Ribeiro wrote: Hi guys, A friend has a problem with rbl. The address is rbl.kropka.net. The company's ip address was added in this list some time ago, before he started working there. Now he fixed the problems with the mail server and would like to remove his company's address from the blacklist. So the rbl site hasnt email contact to remove the ip from the blacklist. Anyone can help me? whois kropka.net Administrative Contact: Private, Registration [EMAIL PROTECTED] Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Technical Contact: Private, Registration [EMAIL PROTECTED] Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 You might also try whois on the IP address of rbl.kropka.net. If this doesn't help, your friend might want to ask for a new IP address. -- Chairman of the Bored. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendmail + RBL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm currently evaluating sendmail's antispam feature (rbl). see http://mail-abuse.org/rbl/usage.html The problem is that it when the test it returns rewrite: ruleset 192 returns: OK. In fact I should get : rewrite: ruleset 192 returns: $# error $@ 5 . 7 . 1 $: Mail from 127 . 0 . 0 . 2 refused; see http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgibin/lookup?127.0.0.2; Is there other ways to configure sendmail with RBL Please advise.. Rgds, Hantzley -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPaV+kAYMAbLGe5rXEQLapwCfdayI157SC0jMb/tV39K0lRx3jmIAn2YX N8USMNO1lUHqwxvSNnN6z2NK =ukUC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail + RBL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there other ways to configure sendmail with RBL If you arn't using ancient sendmail, (woody's is fine) use the dnsbl feature in your sendmail.mc: (examples from my sendmail.mc, see the web pages before you use any dnsbl) FEATURE(`dnsbl',`relays.osirusoft.com',`mail from open relays and spammers refused, see http://relays.osirusoft.com;')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl',`relays.ordb.org',`mail from open relays refused, see http://www.ordb.org;')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl',`block.blars.org',`mail from spamming sites refused, see http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html;')dnl see www.sendmail.org for details, they have an antispam page. -- Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blars.org/blars.html Text is a way we cheat time. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sendmail + RBL
hi ya you can try some of my *.mc files w/ rbl http://www.Linux-Sec.net/Mail - click on the sendmail stuff and i'd install check_local too so that i can check headers, message id and some virus c ya alvin On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Hantzley wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm currently evaluating sendmail's antispam feature (rbl). see http://mail-abuse.org/rbl/usage.html The problem is that it when the test it returns rewrite: ruleset 192 returns: OK. In fact I should get : rewrite: ruleset 192 returns: $# error $@ 5 . 7 . 1 $: Mail from 127 . 0 . 0 . 2 refused; see http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgibin/lookup?127.0.0.2; Is there other ways to configure sendmail with RBL Please advise.. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendmail + RBL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm currently evaluating sendmail's antispam feature (rbl). see http://mail-abuse.org/rbl/usage.html The problem is that it when the test it returns rewrite: ruleset 192 returns: OK. In fact I should get : rewrite: ruleset 192 returns: $# error $@ 5 . 7 . 1 $: Mail from 127 . 0 . 0 . 2 refused; see http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgibin/lookup?127.0.0.2; Is there other ways to configure sendmail with RBL Please advise.. Rgds, Hantzley -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPaV+kAYMAbLGe5rXEQLapwCfdayI157SC0jMb/tV39K0lRx3jmIAn2YX N8USMNO1lUHqwxvSNnN6z2NK =ukUC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sendmail + RBL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there other ways to configure sendmail with RBL If you arn't using ancient sendmail, (woody's is fine) use the dnsbl feature in your sendmail.mc: (examples from my sendmail.mc, see the web pages before you use any dnsbl) FEATURE(`dnsbl',`relays.osirusoft.com',`mail from open relays and spammers refused, see http://relays.osirusoft.com;')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl',`relays.ordb.org',`mail from open relays refused, see http://www.ordb.org;')dnl FEATURE(`dnsbl',`block.blars.org',`mail from spamming sites refused, see http://www.blars.org/errors/block.html;')dnl see www.sendmail.org for details, they have an antispam page. -- Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blars.org/blars.html Text is a way we cheat time. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Re: Sendmail + RBL
hi ya you can try some of my *.mc files w/ rbl http://www.Linux-Sec.net/Mail - click on the sendmail stuff and i'd install check_local too so that i can check headers, message id and some virus c ya alvin On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Hantzley wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm currently evaluating sendmail's antispam feature (rbl). see http://mail-abuse.org/rbl/usage.html The problem is that it when the test it returns rewrite: ruleset 192 returns: OK. In fact I should get : rewrite: ruleset 192 returns: $# error $@ 5 . 7 . 1 $: Mail from 127 . 0 . 0 . 2 refused; see http://www.mail-abuse.org/cgibin/lookup?127.0.0.2; Is there other ways to configure sendmail with RBL Please advise..
we all hate spam (was: Re: Good Day -- RR and rbl)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:13:30PM -0700, Rafael wrote: Since I do not tolerate any level of spam If you do not tolerate any level of spam, you are not using e-mail. Sorry, but spam exists. I hate it, you hate it, we all hate it. But it's a fact of life with e-mail. If you go into a nervous breakdown everytime you get a spam because you just can't emotionally cope with another unsolicited e-mail today, then seek therapy. Really. Well said! I would get about five to ten nervous breakdowns a day, then. :-) And after all, there *are* tools to filter (and even fight) spam, so why on earth one wouldn't take advantage of those tools? In my experience, SpamAssassin has been irreplacable - I get so much spam during a week, that it would be utterly disastrous to cope with them by hand. Fortunately, SA weeds 99% of spam and haven't catched a single real email yet. Pointer to Rafael; it's pretty useless to whine about spam. You will get it, one way or another. If it happened to be a public mailing list, like debian-security - so what? Quit whining and do something about it. Tune up Procmail SpamAssassin and you don't have to tolerate spam anymore. Or is this some sort of question of principle? If so... *shrug* That's all I wanted to say. - -- Jussi Ekholm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://erppimaa.ihku.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9JAczAtEARxQQCB4RAr42AKCkOUAfDlce4TaWCpWUqzAHSLc+VgCePToJ wDHWRVhQuxlJI5XgeiGftaE= =Cjwx -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: we all hate spam (was: Re: Good Day -- RR and rbl)
On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 11:28:35AM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:13:30PM -0700, Rafael wrote: Since I do not tolerate any level of spam If you do not tolerate any level of spam, you are not using e-mail. Sorry, but spam exists. I hate it, you hate it, we all hate it. But it's a fact of life with e-mail. If you go into a nervous breakdown everytime you get a spam because you just can't emotionally cope with another unsolicited e-mail today, then seek therapy. Really. Well said! I would get about five to ten nervous breakdowns a day, then. :-) Noted. I hope you have insurance. And after all, there *are* tools to filter (and even fight) spam, Realy? Filtering is after the fact, so the spammer achives their goal at the filter point with your help, thank you. I booted computers before there was email so stop giving me this nonsense. All I did was mention a disappointment over the fact that the list is managed so poorly that it allows bastards like lojadotelemovel.com to spam everybody on each debian list times over. It's unprofessional IMO and you won't change my position so filter that out of your mind. Those who don't know how to find a decent server to send email to the list do not deserve to send it on the first place. Simple as that. If that includes my server so be it and I'm sure you'll let me know. As I said, I might hang around for some time to possibly learn something usefull from a mailing list that encourages spammers. When the percentage changes significantly I'll make a decision one way or the other. When the level of spam reaches 15% or more I wonder how many people will still hang around. so why on earth one wouldn't take advantage of those tools? In my I won't prevent you from driving on your spare tire if that's what you want, but remember you only have one spare tire and a roll of duct tape. experience, SpamAssassin has been irreplacable - I get so much spam during a week, that it would be utterly disastrous to cope with them by hand. Fortunately, SA weeds 99% of spam and haven't catched a single real email yet. Pointer to Rafael; it's pretty useless to whine about spam. You will get Sure it's useless when people like you simply shrug and keep throwing paper in the trash bin, while the trees are falling for paper used by advertizers to send you more crap. it, one way or another. If it happened to be a public mailing list, like debian-security - so what? Quit whining and do something about it. Tune working on it... up Procmail SpamAssassin and you don't have to tolerate spam anymore. Or is this some sort of question of principle? If so... *shrug* That's all I wanted to say. Spinning the wheel on the same spot... - -- Jussi Ekholm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://erppimaa.ihku.org/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Now back to a regular program. -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: we all hate spam (was: Re: Good Day -- RR and rbl)
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Rafael wrote: As I said, I might hang around for some time Please don't. Please go back to whichever Red Hat list it was that threw you out for spewing flame-bait all over them; with the attitude problem you display, and ignorance of real-life conditions in the world of e-mail, you're obviously not really any use to Debian users. msw -- Glastonbury seems to have lost its roots as a gathering of hippies, or even as a music festival. Instead the people who surrounded me were drunks, stoners, louts, people who didn't actually go and see bands, but went there to get high.-- Richard Brooks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good Day -- RR and rbl
hi ya adam most ISP will allow their clients to send outgoing email thru their ( hopefully properly configured ) SMTP server - so all your outgoing emails will have an RR associated with it - problem is that galacticasoftware.com is gonna look like its coming from mail1.foo_isp.net instead ... which can be interpreted many different ways - i think each domain should have its own dns server and mail server... ( properly configured ) members of a list, should be able to post to the list... even if they have broken rr and are listed ( incorrectly ) as spammers... member's only posting will fix that .. but than again ... when you do members only... and you're listed a [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... but you tyry to post from [EMAIL PROTECTED] you get bounced again - need to configure Dj for sendmail or SMTP hosts for outgoing emails and all seems to be dependent upon dns files for mx and also for each mail client.. all diffferent - people move disks and move machines around all the time and rename it and upgrade or downgrade or rotate machines for different services -- more headaches than its worth ?? for large lists ( too many (false) bounces ) fun stuff c ya alvin -- for minimimizing spam... without negatively affecting most people.. -- simply do a RBL lookup -- if they are listed as spammers... they cant post -- if they are mistakenly listed as spammers ... than they are now informed... that somehow, they got registered as a spammer in somebody's RBL list and they need tot get themself out of that rbl list -- and depending on who maintains that RBL list.. its a major headache... all by itself... and an expensive legal battle too ( so never mind... it does negatively affect lotsof people ( if they find themslef incorrectly listed in an RBL - but than gain... i wanna know if and when i wind up in an RBL ... that i go and get myself out of it ( happened once did an open relay test... it was ( and got listed ... ;-) ... fix the problem and got out ( out of the open realy db just as easily.. -- no simple answer... is the bottom line.. On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Adam Majer wrote: On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:55:57PM -0700, Rafael wrote: Email should never be accepted from poorly (or intensionaly baddly) setup servers that do not follow RFCs. by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 17Ozil-0003W2-00; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 06:51:58 -0500 From: Mr.Muyiwa Ige [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Assuming the spam came from 213.181.64.226 it would be very easy to reject it based on the fact that there is no RR in DNS for that IP. Don't do that please. There are a whole slew of ISPs that do not provide RR for some stupid little reason. For instance my mail is not setup correctly because I don't have a static IP yet. Does that mean it's spam? It's much better just to use spamassassin [using spamc/spamd for mail servers]. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good Day -- RR and rbl
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:05:25AM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote: members of a list, should be able to post to the list... even if they have broken rr and are listed ( incorrectly ) as spammers... member's only posting will fix that .. It sure will, but being this the security list, let's say someone found a root crack in let's say, the inetd server. And their post gets thrown out because no RR. Hmmm, no one gets warned and some worm starts going around and their goes the internet. Well, alright, an extreme example, but that's one reason of not using RR for mail. - Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good Day -- RR and rbl
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:17:34AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:05:25AM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote: members of a list, should be able to post to the list... even if they have broken rr and are listed ( incorrectly ) as spammers... member's only posting will fix that .. It sure will, but being this the security list, let's say someone found a root crack in let's say, the inetd server. And their post gets thrown out because no RR. Hmmm, no one gets warned and some worm starts going around and their goes the internet. Well, alright, an extreme example, but that's one reason of not using RR for mail. That's too silly a reason to take it seriously. You just want to come up with all kinds of excuses for lame (email) users. If the guys finds a serious security problem he'll be able to send the message one way or the other. No need to do it from unprofessionaly setup MTAs. - Adam I know you won't lose much when I get tired of spam [1] and unsubscribe from debian lists. Being a long time Redhat admin I wanted to switch to debian for some time. In order to become familiar with something new I decided to subscribe to the mailing lists and listen to what's going on for a while without asking the same questions others have asked before. Since I do not tolerate any level of spam I consider it immature to run a professional mailing list like debian security so that it can be abused by the most stupid script kiddie. Sorry but the impression I got so far is semiprofessional. Cannot recommend it for use at work when people don't want to run serious/professional mailing lists. [1] received 4 more spams a moment ago. Don't need assassin to measure the level of frustration with deb lists. This is getting too silly so I'll stop here. Thanks for your time. -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good Day -- RR and rbl
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:13:30PM -0700, Rafael wrote: It sure will, but being this the security list, let's say someone found a root crack in let's say, the inetd server. And their post gets thrown out because no RR. Hmmm, no one gets warned and some worm starts going around and their goes the internet. Well, alright, an extreme example, but that's one reason of not using RR for mail. That's too silly a reason to take it seriously. No, it's a perfectly valid reason. Just because other admins do not perfectly mirror your opinions does not mean that they are stupid. Not only that, but there are a number of Debian users and developers that, for various reasons, find themselves listed in things like DUL or rfc-ignorant, despite the fact that they are using services for legitimate purposes. Debian mail servers are secure and accept standard e-mail via SMTP. The lists are run on the assumption that readers are intelligent. Perhaps you seek to disprove this assumption, but that is not our problem. Filtering mail going into lists is a dangerous proposition, and doubly so with this list. No spam filter is perfect, and false positives are inevitable. Thus it is improper to blanket spam-filter a list such as this. However, you are welcome to install tools like procmail and use it for yourself. You just want to come up with all kinds of excuses for lame (email) users. If the guys finds a serious security problem he'll be able to send the message one way or the other. No need to do it from unprofessionaly setup MTAs. Perhaps if the problem is serious enough, yes. But what if the person doesn't even know that his message hasn't gotten through? The sender might never retry, never knowing some ignorant admin set up the Debian lists to automatically blackhole spam. I know you won't lose much when I get tired of spam [1] and unsubscribe from debian lists. Being a long time Redhat admin I wanted to switch to debian for some time. We will lose a lot more if we try to force thousands of readers to accept your definition of spam than we will if you spare us your ranting for lack of ability to install procmail and leave. Since I do not tolerate any level of spam I consider it immature to run a If you do not tolerate any level of spam, you are not using e-mail. Sorry, but spam exists. I hate it, you hate it, we all hate it. But it's a fact of life with e-mail. If you go into a nervous breakdown everytime you get a spam because you just can't emotionally cope with another unsolicited e-mail today, then seek therapy. Really. professional mailing list like debian security so that it can be abused by the most stupid script kiddie. Sorry but the impression I got so far There is no security breach involved here. Please watch what you say. is semiprofessional. Cannot recommend it for use at work when people don't want to run serious/professional mailing lists. That is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. What exactly is the correlation between quality of the code and the configuration of the mailing lists, when the two are TOTALLY SEPARATE? This is getting too silly so I'll stop here. Thanks, I was feeling the same. Maybe you'd like to avail yourself of the below: To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good Day -- RR and rbl
Ironically enough, Rafael's server rejected my message for the sole reason that Savvis broke reverse DNS for the colo facility my box is at 2 weeks ago and has been slow to fix it. Shows you right away why these restrictions are bad. -- John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.complete.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good Day -- RR and rbl
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:29:22PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: No, it's a perfectly valid reason. Just because other admins do not perfectly mirror your opinions does not mean that they are stupid. Not only that, but there are a number of Debian users and developers that, for various reasons, find themselves listed in things like DUL or rfc-ignorant, despite the fact that they are using services for legitimate purposes. I happen to agree, what if their is a BIND worm going around that takes down 10% of the net's NS servers...now no one would have reverse resolution...just a thought...silly and unlikely though it may be. Phil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good Day -- RR and rbl
Phillip Hofmeister [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:29:22PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: No, it's a perfectly valid reason. Just because other admins do not perfectly mirror your opinions does not mean that they are stupid. Not only that, but there are a number of Debian users and developers that, for various reasons, find themselves listed in things like DUL or rfc-ignorant, despite the fact that they are using services for legitimate purposes. I happen to agree, what if their is a BIND worm going around that takes down 10% of the net's NS servers...now no one would have reverse resolution...just a thought...silly and unlikely though it may be. I suggest that fantastic reasons are unnecessary. That someone might have a valid point to contribute is enough reason to permit them; that their domain administrator doesn't know what they're doing (eg no reverse DNS or no postmaster@) really doesn't strike me as a valid reason to prevent everyone else on this list from making up our own silly minds. Of course, there's always this handy X-RBL-Warning: header that could be inserted in the mail as it comes from the list server... Nah, just block or don't block, no compromises allowed ;^] ~Tim -- http://spodzone.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good Day -- RR and rbl
Since I do not tolerate any level of spam I consider it immature to run a professional mailing list like debian security so that it can be abused by the most stupid script kiddie. Sorry but the impression I got so far is semiprofessional. Cannot recommend it for use at work when people don't want to run serious/professional mailing lists. I beleive the term you're looking for is spammers, not script kiddies. There wasn't any 31337 h4x0ring going on here. If your basis for using redhat over debian in a work environment is the amount of spam on a mailing list I think your network is in trouble. Redhat released new openssh packages on June 27th, Debian released them on June 24th. Hey, at least you don't have spam... -Greg -- --SupplyEdge--- Greg Hunt 800-733-3380 x 107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
