Hmmm.. I thought I remembered Scott saying he was keeping DNSStuff to
himself when he sold Declude. I guess he changed his mind.
I would guess it's good news that there's a larger organization behind
DNSStuff now... to keep it going should any one person no longer be part of
it.
Darin.
- O
It's good practice to not release details of a vulnerability until the
vulnerability is patched. Because IMail has been around for so long and
has a large installed base, they are a frequent target. It would also
appear that there are some security people that like to focus on IMail
and are u
FWIW, Paul Parisi is not only the CTO of DNSStuff.com but is also the
CTO of Declude.com ... Which helped me frame David's reply!
http://www.declude.com/site/news1017.htm
http://www.boston.com/business/whoswhat/2006/12/declude_newbury.html
Andrew.
p.s. I ran a whois on a few typo variations on
Interesting. I guess those were not previously publicly disclosed.
John T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike N
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:43 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] [Declude.JunkMail]
From the release notes -
Addressed the following security vulnerabilities (identified by iDefense
Labs):
[IDEF2159] IMailServer.WebConnect Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
[IDEF2160] IMail Server 2006 IMailLDAPService.Sync3 Heap Overflow
Vulnerability
[IDEF2161] IMail Server 2006 IMailLDAPServic
AFAIK, there is no change in the SMTP service in IMail 2006.2 compared to
IMail 2006.1, so there will be no problem running any version of Declude on
2006.2 that runs on 2006.1.
John T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephan
Sent: Mo
What vulnerability in 2006.1 are you referring to? AFAIK, there is none.
John T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike N
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:44 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] [Declude.JunkMa
We’re using it, no observed problems. Latest Declude / Sniffer / Imail 2006.2
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephan
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:03 AM
To: declude.junkmail@declude.com
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 2006.2
Has an
Especially since 2006.2 fixes a vulnerabilty in 2006.1 - we'll have to roll
it out quickly.
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 2006.2
It would be nice to
It would be nice to know.
- Original Message -
From: "David Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] [Declude.JunkMail] Imail 2006.2
We have not tested against IMail 2006.2
David Barker
Director of Product Management
Y
We have not tested against IMail 2006.2
David Barker
Director of Product Management
Your Email security is our business
978.499.2933 office
978.988.1311 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephan
Sent: Monday, F
Has anyone tested declude (latest version) with imail 2006.2 (it is available from the ipswitch preview forum and is scheduled for release on March 6)? Any issues?I emailed Declude support to ask if it had been tested but didn't get a response.Thanks.
---This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail m
MessageI raised it to 30 points (subject tag at 100,hold at 200).
It's consistantly catching static spammers that aren't getting enough weight to
get held here.
Perhaps it would be good to combo with a iribl test.
- Original Message -
From: Sharyn Schmidt
To: declude.junkmail@dec
1) /24 blocks of addresses containing systems that are apparently sending
bulk email (in volumes apparently comparable with the volume from AOL,
Earthlink, Google), with any of the following attributes: missing or bogus
reverse dns, reverse dns names in domains with no web server, or domains
with b
FiveTenSRCDarn enter key.
Here is the 5-10-misc (return code 9) results here:
In November 405 hits. In January almost 36,000 hits. So they are definitely
doing something different.
Lots of false positives though 1000.
I have seen many static spammers lately getting caught by this test. I fine
tu
FiveTenSRCI assume you are refering to result code of 9.
That usually means that they use wide search criteria to list addresses.
Usually this means they block a /24.
I have seen a big uptick on this returns here from fivetem-misc:
http://www.five-ten-sg.com/blackhole.php:
misc - Miscellaneous i
Darin,
Here is one with a comment from Scott :)
http://computerworld.com.my/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=4416&pubid=4&;
issueid=107
David Barker
Director of Product Management
Your Email security is our business
978.499.2933 office
978.988.1311 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Messag
Hi,
I was looking up a mailserver IP address in the DNSstuff's spam database
link and noticed that the mailserver in question was listed on the
FIVETENSRC spam database.
Underneath the listing, though, it said in parenthesis, do not use.
Is this not a valid test anymore?
Thanks,
Sharyn
---
18 matches
Mail list logo
