On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 3:27:13 PM, Matt wrote:
M> Pete,
M> Your memory fails you :) I reported one just yesterday,
M> however it was understandable. The rule is below (slightly
M> obfuscated for public consumption).
MB>> Final
MB>> RULE 349776-055: User Submission, 13 days, 3.1979660500
"
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:54 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] New Spam Storm
On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 1:44:30 PM, Jim wrote:
JM> Pete,
JM> Is there a possibility of setting up another return code for
JM> situations such as this such as a blacklist rulecode that only has
JM>
On Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 1:44:30 PM, Jim wrote:
JM> Pete,
JM> Is there a possibility of setting up another return code for
JM> situations such as this such as a blacklist rulecode that only has
JM> rules for messages such as these that should be blacklisted
JM> immediately. I wouldn't mind set
On Tuesday, January 4, 2005, 6:13:24 PM, Matt wrote:
M> I've noted that dictionary attack type spam is generally of this
M> variety, and while you are probably blocking a great deal of this, the
M> sheer volume makes it look like you aren't doing that well against it.
M> I've also noted that the
On Tuesday, January 4, 2005, 6:06:00 PM, Rick wrote:
RR> I've sure been seeing it. My db updates are triggered off email update
RR> notices from sniffer, so I know I have the latest.
RR> Feels like something's gone wrong with sniffer due to the year change.
We are definitely experiencing a spam
