Wilson and the Sir.CAM virus
The *REALLY* odd thing about this is that Sir.CAM will only send itself
out once *PER INFECTION*.
Is this guy auto-opening every virus he gets, or is this a directed attack
against this list?
Another interesting thing is that I'm now getting this virus sent to an
e-mail address that has been out-of-use for over 2 years, and even then
was only used for about three months. It never even got any SPAM!
Alan
--
Alan Clegg I do UNIX and Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]I don't have any certification
I have experience
Re: Peter from the Dike and Security
Unless the network is lying to me again, peter green said:
> * Brett Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010626 21:49]:
> > > "Chris" == Chris Bolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > perl -e 'while(<>){$_=~tr/A-Za-z/N-ZA-Mn-za-m/;print}'
> > > Then paste the email :-)
> >
> > Or, a bit shorter,
> >
> > $ tr 'a-zA-Z' 'n-za-mN-ZA-M' < email
>
> Or a bit kludgier,
>
> perl -ni -e 'foreach (split //){unless(/\w/){print; next;}print
> chr(((ord(lc)-96+13)%26)+96)}'
Why not "rot13 < email"
AlanC
Re: best patches to be apply for QMAIL
Unless the network is lying to me again, Henning Brauer said: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 06:24:16PM +0530, hari_bhr wrote: > > i would like to know , what are the patches to be patch with this. > > for more secure and with out any holes > > could some one guide me what are the patches to be apply > > Not a single one. Speaking of qmail, that is. Be *SURE* that you apply all patches to the redhat O/S, as they seem to have much more difficulty getting it right than qmail did. ;-) AlanC
Re: SPAM Patches recomendations.
Unless the network is lying to me again, Chris Garrigues said: > The particular assumption that Charles didn't explain is that > user%host2&host1 or host2|user@host1 will be relayed by host1 > to user@host2. > > Certainly software that does this is broken, If anyone cares, this used to be completely legal and actually, a very useful way of doing things. There were a number of UUCP sites that were much quicker to address via: [EMAIL PROTECTED] than giving the full ! path to the actual uucp site. This was not "broken", it was "operational". I guess those days are gone, however. Just for fun, does anyone remember the issues surrounding: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Other fun thing that nolonger works: finger user@somehost@otherhost AlanC -- Alan Clegg I do UNIX and Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]I don't have any certification I have experience
lower concurrency on _certain_ domains?
I run mailinglists.org and have come to find out that they way that AOL is determining that I am a "spammer" (I'm not), is the number of concurrent connections into AOL. Is there any way to lower the concurrency rate on a single domain (AOL.com) while leaving everyone else intact? AlanC -- Alan Clegg I do UNIX and Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]I don't have any certification I have experience
