-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Let's try this again with sending to the list. Sorry Mike!
Mike Cardwell wrote:
> That wouldn't help in this particular case:
>
> "All domains registered in the last 5 days under the .BIZ, .COM, .INFO,
> .NAME, .NET and .US TLDs"
>
> Doesn't work f
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 19:51 +0100, UxBoD wrote:
> - "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
> | grep _DOB *.cf# Part of the stock rule-set.
>
> How dumb me be ;) Thanks Karsten :D
Heh, no problem. :) Just figured I should spare you the time of adding
it, and prevent you from scoring twice.
--
c
- "Karsten Bräckelmann" wrote:
| On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 18:55 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
| > | Still working fine for me here, 51 hits so far today against DOB.
| >
| > Not come across that RBL before! Thanks :)
|
| grep _DOB *.cf# Part of the stock rule-set.
|
|
| --
| char
| *t="\1
On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 18:55 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- wrote:
> | Still working fine for me here, 51 hits so far today against DOB.
>
> Not come across that RBL before! Thanks :)
grep _DOB *.cf# Part of the stock rule-set.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Mike Cardwell wrote:
Chris Owen wrote:
http://spameatingmonkey.com/lists.html
They will tell you domains that are 5, 10 and 15 days old.
That wouldn't help in this particular case:
"All domains registered in the last 5 days under the .BIZ, .COM, .INFO,
.NAME, .NET a
Chris Owen wrote:
One thing they all have in common is their registration dates are
very young according to whois lookups. It seems in general if we had
a reliable way to lookup domain age we might be able to differentiate
spam.
What's the current status of the Day Old Bread BL? Has it move
- "Bill Landry" wrote:
| > On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
| >
| >> One thing they all have in common is their registration dates are
| very
| >> young according to whois lookups. It seems in general if we had a
| >> reliable way to lookup domain age we might be able to
| different
On Sep 14, 2009, at 12:41 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
One thing they all have in common is their registration dates are
very young according to whois lookups. It seems in general if we
had a reliable way to lookup domain age we might be able to
differ
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
>
>> One thing they all have in common is their registration dates are very
>> young according to whois lookups. It seems in general if we had a
>> reliable way to lookup domain age we might be able to differentiate
>> spam.
>
> What's the current status
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Warren Togami wrote:
One thing they all have in common is their registration dates are very
young according to whois lookups. It seems in general if we had a
reliable way to lookup domain age we might be able to differentiate
spam.
What's the current status of the Day O
(resend, first attempted about 14 hours ago)
I noticed that many spam (in English) have links like this post because of apache.org's spam filter>.cn where the domains are
not triggering URIBL's. It seems that they have thousands of
.cn domains (very cheap to register?), and I very rarely see
11 matches
Mail list logo
