http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
Compare this report to a similar report last month.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
The results below are only as good as the data submitted by nightly
masscheck
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz a écrit :
Hi all,
Again me, Well, in the security scope i use a principle that states that you
souldnt use a lower layer solution to fix a higher one. So SPAM is a Layer 7
problem that is used to fixed with a Layer 3 solution (RBL).
I'd like a brainstorm to
Hi!
27.1836% 0.1985% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL
19.8213% 0.1785% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK *
90.9360% 0.3854% 0.77 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT
13.0564% 0.4838% 0.67 RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_BL *
* It is clear that the two main blacklists are Spamhaus and BRBL. The
Zen combinatoin of Spamhaus zones is extremely
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 03:14 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
Compare this report to a similar report last month.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
The results below are
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
===
HOSTKARMA_BL much better as URIBL
===
SPAM%HAM%RANK RULE
68.3651% 0.2806% 0.79 URIBL_HOSTKARMA_BL *
How do you check return values? There is a lot inside.
Good morning,
I am preparing env with more then 10 node of spamassassin machine. I am
wonder what kind of software do you use to clone OS and Spamassassin
application to the other machine. I am gonne use Debian, I find FAI but it
won't migrate SA database. So it isn't the best choise.
What it
* ewreg ew-...@mailbox.com.pl:
Good morning,
I am preparing env with more then 10 node of spamassassin machine. I am
wonder what kind of software do you use to clone OS and Spamassassin
application to the other machine. I am gonne use Debian, I find FAI but it
won't migrate SA database.
Warren Togami wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
Compare this report to a similar report last month.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
The results below are only as good as the data submitted by
We use cfengine to install, configure software and also to check for
compliance.
As I see, I can install software over the cfengine. But can I make mirror
with cfengine? I would like to clone some local files to all n-servers. I
think it can't be done with the help of this software.
TiA,
E.
ewreg wrote:
We use cfengine to install, configure software and also to check for
compliance.
As I see, I can install software over the cfengine. But can I make mirror
with cfengine? I would like to clone some local files to all n-servers. I
think it can't be done with the help of this
On 11/15/2009 11:00 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
Compare this report to a similar report last month.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/NightlyMassCheck
The results
Is anyone else seeing an influx of spam with a zip attachment
balancechecker.zip?
This contains a windows executable, balancechecker.exe, which appears to
be testing clean with clam and others.
I'm inclined to think it's *not* clean and is viral.
EXAMPLE
http://pastebin.com/m730f90e9
* ewreg ew-...@mailbox.com.pl:
We use cfengine to install, configure software and also to check for
compliance.
As I see, I can install software over the cfengine. But can I make mirror
with cfengine? I would like to clone some local files to all n-servers. I
think it can't be done with
On søn 15 nov 2009 18:47:49 CET, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote
http://pastebin.com/m730f90e9
winnow.malware.8163
--
xpoint
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:53, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 03:14 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200910.mbox/%3c4ad11c44.9030...@redhat.com%3e
Compare this report to a similar report last
SPAM% HAM% RANK RULE
12.8342% 0.0021% 0.94 RCVD_IN_PSBL *
12.3053% 0.0026% 0.94 RCVD_IN_XBL
31.2499% 0.0827% 0.87 RCVD_IN_ANBREP_BL *2
80.2578% 0.1485% 0.86 RCVD_IN_PBL
27.1836% 0.1985% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL
19.8213% 0.1785% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SEMBLACK *
90.9360% 0.3854% 0.77
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
Hi all,
Again me, Well, in the security scope i use a principle that states that you
souldnt use a lower layer solution to fix a higher one. So SPAM is a Layer 7
problem that is used to fixed with a Layer 3 solution (RBL).
I'd like a brainstorm to convince
On 11/15/2009 03:36 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
SPAM%HAM%RANK RULE
12.8342% 0.0021% 0.94 RCVD_IN_PSBL *
12.3053% 0.0026% 0.94 RCVD_IN_XBL
31.2499% 0.0827% 0.87 RCVD_IN_ANBREP_BL *2
80.2578% 0.1485% 0.86 RCVD_IN_PBL
27.1836% 0.1985% 0.79 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL
19.8213% 0.1785% 0.79
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk schrieb:
Is anyone else seeing an influx of spam with a zip attachment
balancechecker.zip?
This contains a windows executable, balancechecker.exe, which appears to
be testing clean with clam and others.
I'm inclined to think it's *not* clean and is viral.
EXAMPLE
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 20:34 +, Justin Mason wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:53, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 03:14 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 00:07 +0100, Ralph Bornefeld-Ettmann wrote:
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk schrieb:
Is anyone else seeing an influx of spam with a zip attachment
balancechecker.zip?
This contains a windows executable, balancechecker.exe, which appears to
be testing clean with clam and
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
safe. BRBL has a high hit rate as well, with a moderate safety rating.
Wondered why i wasn't getting anything from mysql.com for over a week,
BRBL has them listed :)
--
Res
What does Windows have that Linux doesn't? - One hell of a lot
22 matches
Mail list logo
