On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:08:19AM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
Unlike most spam, this one has actually resulted in some arrests.
Well, not this one specifically, it's been going on for a while with
multiple different people/groups attempting the Spanish Prisoner con
game.
Thanks for the
Rafael said:
What bothers me in all of this is that Debian lists are managed so
poorly
to let this happen. I subscribed to 6 debian mailing lists recently,
dropped two right away because there was so much spam I've never seen
before. Today I received 8 messages related to that f*ng crap from
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:01:40PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:
I believe that it's an intentional policy not to reject anything on the
grounds that it _may_ be a valid poster, and guilty because of some minor
configuration error should not mean automated lockout.
It would be nice if we
What bothers me in all of this is that Debian lists are
managed so poorly
to let this happen.
The Debian lists are deliberately not subscriber only may post on the theory
that it's better to press DEL than to prevent someone from posting.
However, subscriber only is a simple config option
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:18:16PM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
What bothers me in all of this is that Debian lists are
managed so poorly
to let this happen.
The Debian lists are deliberately not subscriber only may post on
the theory that it's better to press DEL than to prevent
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:01:40PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:
Rafael said:
..
I believe that it's an intentional policy not to reject anything on the
grounds that it _may_ be a valid poster, and guilty because of some minor
configuration error should not mean automated
hi ya
a silly question ... if spamassassin caught the spam,
i assume it still received the spam and dumped it into a rejected spam
folder ???
i would rather see that the spam senders see a bounce email that
fills up their boxes with returned undeliverables..
- at least thats what i
If I remember correctly, doesn't that require sendmail?
As for bounce, while Kmail has that feature it does require a real reply-to
address. For the vast majority of spam, the reply-to is deliberately obfuscated.
apt-get install spamassassin
It trapped that one for me as well as 99% of the
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
Adam Majer écrivait :
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:55:57PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
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
On Tuesday, 2002-07-02 at 15:02:14 +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
If I remember correctly, doesn't that require sendmail?
Doesn't here. I run it from procmail, which is invoked from postfix:
(In /etc/procmailrc:)
# Spamassasin
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc
My personal .procmailrc files supposed Spam in
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
Hi all,
I'm having really weird problem with X11 forwarding and two
Debian boxes.
I can login with OpenSSH and scp and everything else no
problem.
However, when I try to launch an xterm, I get either:
can't open DISPLAY
Or the display is set to server:10.0.
If DISPLAY=server:10.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:18:16PM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
The Debian lists are deliberately not subscriber only may post on
the theory that it's better to press DEL than to prevent someone from
posting.
* Quoting Alvin Oga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
hi ya
a silly question ... if spamassassin caught the spam,
i assume it still received the spam and dumped it into a rejected spam
folder ???
i would rather see that the spam senders see a bounce email that
fills up their boxes with returned
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 04:32:59PM -0700, Anne Carasik wrote:
| Hi Vineet,
|
| It doesn't matter--it's still does not work no matter what I do
| to my X server.
is your local routing working? i.e., can you ping localhost and
$(hostname)?
--
Michael Eyrich
Hi Guys
I am setting up a firewall that needs to have
the functionality of forwarding vpn connections
to an internal masqueraded workstation.
At this point all I need is the port number and
protocol that VPN uses.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
..Craig
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
ipsec?
iptables
#ipsec rule for NETBIOS/SAMBA over the tunnel
iptables -A FORWARD -i ipsec0 -j ACCEPT
INPUT rules
#specific ipsec lines
iptables -A INPUT -s $lh_fwall -p udp --dport 500 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -s $lh_fwall -p 50 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -s $lh_fwall -p 51 -j ACCEPT
echo
Bob Nielsen wrote:
apt-get install spamassassin
It trapped that one for me as well as 99% of the spam I receive.
AFAIK, mail addressed to the Debian lists are already filtered using
spamassassin, but it's a two years old version.
Kind listmaster, when will murphy (or the relevant machine) be
Adam Majer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Don't do that please. There are a whole slew of ISPs that do not provide
RR for some stupid little reason.
For addresses assigned by RIPE, all users of IP addresses have the right to
have reverse DNS if they want it. Does ARIN not have a similar policy?
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
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:55:57PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
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.
I don't agree with the policy of rejecting mail due to a lack of a
reverse DNS entry. However,
Noah L. Meyerhans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't agree with the policy of rejecting mail due to a lack of a
reverse DNS entry. However, rfc-ignorant.org runs several nice
blacklists, including ip-whois, which I subscribe to. This blacklist
contains netblocks for which no valid whois
Hi.
I'm a complete novice when it comes to iptables, so I'm wondering if
someone has a iptables-script which allows Kerberos, afs, ssh and ping.
(it should of course disallow everything else...)
/Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:30:52PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
Given that rfc-ignorant lists *.uk for not having contact info, would you
like to refine that to `shite idea'?
That's in the whois.rfc-ignorant.org blacklist. That's not the list I
was talking about. And it is not rfc-ignorant's
Yeah, I still get a few false positives and have had to tweak things a
bit (adding whitelist entries, etc.)
Something strange has happened in the past few days, however. I
started seeing messages that didn't appear to have gone through
spamassassin at all. Some of these were obviously spam. In
Previously Daniel Sw?rd wrote:
I'm a complete novice when it comes to iptables, so I'm wondering if
someone has a iptables-script which allows Kerberos, afs, ssh and ping.
(it should of course disallow everything else...)
Try mason to build your firewall for you. If will look at what you do
on
BOATERS, SWIMMERS, FISHERMEN, CANOEISTS, KAYAKERS---ALL WATERSPORTSMEN:
A MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH IN WATER SAFETY!
GET RID OF BULKY LIFE VESTS FOREVER---
The World's Most Compact Life Vest-The Swimmer's Safety Belt ® - First Ever
U.S. Coast Guard Approved Personal Flotation Device (PFD) for Boaters
I had this problem as well, but didn't need it bad enough until I started
reading this thread and decided to look into it more.
1: make sure server/etc/ssh/sshd_config has Xforwarding enabled yes
2: make sure you have xbase-clients installed, it contains the xauth program.
3: run ssh with -X on
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
These assholes are already in SpamCop's RBL. It would be nice to have a
_little_ blocking.
-Mack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BOATERS, SWIMMERS, FISHERMEN, CANOEISTS, KAYAKERS---ALL WATERSPORTSMEN:
A MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH IN WATER SAFETY!
GET RID OF BULKY LIFE VESTS FOREVER---
The World's Most
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
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]
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,
## Mack Earnhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
These assholes are already in SpamCop's RBL. It would be nice to have a
_little_ blocking.
It's your fault if you don't filter on X-Spam-Status.
And thank you very much for distributing that piece of spam one more
time, my procmailrc did catch it the
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
Christoph Moench-Tegeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's your fault if you don't filter on X-Spam-Status.
FYI (sorry for the long line), it was:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.3 required=4.7
## Florent Rougon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Christoph Moench-Tegeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's your fault if you don't filter on X-Spam-Status.
FYI (sorry for the long line), it was:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.3 required=4.7
See? I don't know who configured 4.7 as threshold (should be 4.2,
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:53:05PM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
See? I don't know who configured 4.7 as threshold (should be 4.2, anyhow),
but for my private purposes I consider 2.0 as the upper limit.
Here's a novel idea...
If hitting D (or whatever key your MUA uses) bothers you
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
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 08:12:56AM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
Yeah, I still get a few false positives and have had to tweak things a
bit (adding whitelist entries, etc.)
Something strange has happened in the past few days, however. I
started seeing messages that didn't appear to have gone
Hi,
I see a claim that glibc isn't vulnerable at:
http://www.kb.cert.org/CERT_WEB/vul-notes.nsf/id/AAMN-5BMSW2
Any comments?
(Sorry about breaking the thread -- I only just recently subscribed
and don't have the messages in this thread in my mailer)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Well, my bad on the reply without snippage.
I guess everyone has to choose for themselves how much filtering is
enough. If I have to delete it, that means it reached its destination.
Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:53:05PM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
43 matches
Mail list logo
