On 24.07.07 08:57, Kelson wrote:
Over here we use MIMEDefang as the glue to tie SpamAssassin, Clamd, etc.
together. MD filters are very customizable (if you can write it in
Perl, you can put it in a MD filter). After our filter calls clamd, we
check the name of the matching signature
Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote:
Did somebody of you create an extra 'instance' of clamad-filter to fight
spam with spam-sigs only, without scaning for virus-sigs?
I'm running two instances of clamd in our mail gateway.
One instance has the stock signatures (minus phishing sigs) and
is used before
John Rudd wrote:
Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote:
I have a 'political problem' with that. We 'drop' knowv viruses into
a quarantine directory without further notice, and only once in years
somebody complained and wanted his virus back :-)
You could even do it as 5 different instances (1 for base
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 03:35 +0200, Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote:
This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents,
but this time neatly packed into a zipfile:
I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd files embedded
in pdf and then rar'ed.
And i'd still
Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote:
This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents,
but this time neatly packed into a zipfile:
I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd files embedded
in pdf and then rar'ed.
And i'd still like to meet the person that goes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb:
Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote:
This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents,
but this time neatly packed into a zipfile:
I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd files embedded
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Schetterer schrieb:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb:
Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote:
This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents,
but this time neatly packed into a zipfile:
I'm really excited whats going to happen next.
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.07.07 18:47, John Rudd wrote:
As I've said for years: we should just ban attachments. They're not
really useful for anything that can't be done a better way. Which only
leaves them being useful for attacks of one form or another.
some people just want,
some just need -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come across
ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above,
there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do
another way.
rant
In fact, nobody _NEEDS_ email, because we could just FTP text files
I would start by banning Outlook along with attachments.
Why stop there, ban -all- Microsoft products from the internet.
Next, I would ban smoking, unhealthy foods, and moronic neo-cons.
Come on, this is Earth we are talking about.
The whole point of SpamAssassin is to attempt to make ordinary
John Rudd wrote:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 22.07.07 18:47, John Rudd wrote:
As I've said for years: we should just ban attachments. They're not
really useful for anything that can't be done a better way. Which
only leaves them being useful for attacks of one form or another.
some
On Monday 23 July 2007, Jerry Glomph Black wrote:
I would start by banning Outlook along with attachments.
Why stop there, ban -all- Microsoft products from the internet.
Next, I would ban smoking, unhealthy foods, and moronic neo-cons.
Come on, this is Earth we are talking about.
The whole
Wait, would that ban on smoking include cigars too?
Are regular neo-cons okay?
Please delete.
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Glomph Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 10:32 AM
To: John Rudd
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Now its zip attachments
PROTECTED]
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: Now its zip attachments ^^
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Schetterer schrieb:
Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb:
Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote:
This night it seems like we're beeing
John Rudd wrote:
some just need -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come
across
ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above,
there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do
another way.
That is very similar to saying that a person does not
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote:
... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last
week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines
every attachment anyway it is no additional load. In fact, due to the
messages not hitting SA it
Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote:
... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last
week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines
every attachment anyway it is no additional load. In fact, due to the
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote:
... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last
week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines
every attachment anyway it is no additional load. In
hi,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:13:22PM +0200, Matthias Keller told us:
Using amavisd-new...
actually, with amavisd-new, you can treat virus names in a special
way via regexes, so that it doesn't get recognized as a virus, but
instead you can add extra points to the spamassassin score.
This
Per Jessen wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
some just need -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come
across
ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above,
there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do
another way.
That is very similar to saying that a
Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote:
... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last
week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines
every attachment anyway it is no additional load. In fact, due to the
messages
From: Dave Pooser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
some just need -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come across
ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above,
there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do
another way.
rant
In fact, nobody _NEEDS_ email,
You mean my not smoking and never have smoked status gets me drummed
out of the neo-con corps? What will those who know me and think I am
somewhere off to the right of pick an extreme example would be
astonished. But then my friends on the right figure I am quite
squishy as a conservative. Ah
This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents,
but this time neatly packed into a zipfile:
I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd files embedded
in pdf and then rar'ed.
And i'd still like to meet the person that goes through all that trouble
to read
On Sun, July 22, 2007 6:47 pm, John Rudd wrote:
For multi-lingual reasons, just allow pain ascii or unicode, and throw
away any messages with any body types other than that.
I'd like to ban all those people who write in the tiniest font they can
find. Then there's my one brother who always has
Not sure I agree about banning all attachments, but I would like to ban all
email with fonts as BIG as people can find and those which use any kind of
background stationary.
26 matches
Mail list logo
