> 79.137.219.171
> 79.137.223.42
> 79.137.225.194
> 79.137.231.242
> 79.137.233.223
> 79.137.235.210
> 79.137.235.252
> 79.137.237.210
Slightly off subject,
This list of class Cs appears to be a HUGE block 79.137.170ish.0/24 -
79.137.240.0ish a russian spam gang. They appear to right now be u
Rob McEwen wrote:
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
I have 24 hours of data to play with.. at first results seemed
promising. I found over 300,000 hosts that had connected only to my
highest MX and did not issue a quit. But.. of that group:
96.0% are listed on spamhaus (zen, i did not breakdown onto the
i
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
I have 24 hours of data to play with.. at first results seemed
promising. I found over 300,000 hosts that had connected only to my
highest MX and did not issue a quit. But.. of that group:
96.0% are listed on spamhaus (zen, i did not breakdown onto the
individual lists)
2.3%
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Steve Radich wrote:
> > Sorry; apparently I was unclear.
> >
> > MX records I'm saying as follows:
> > 100 - R
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve Radich wrote:
> Sorry; apparently I was unclear.
>
> MX records I'm saying as follows:
> 100 - Real
> 200 - Real perhaps, as many "real" as you want
> 300 - Bogus - one
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Steve Radich wrote:
> > Sorry; apparently I was unclear.
> >
> > MX records I'm saying as follows:
> > 100 - Real
> > 200 - Real perhaps, as many "real" as you want
> > 300 - Bogus - one that blo
Steve Radich wrote:
Sorry; apparently I was unclear.
MX records I'm saying as follows:
100 - Real
200 - Real perhaps, as many "real" as you want
300 - Bogus - one that blocks port 25 with tcp reset for example
400 - accept port, logs ip -> blacklist (not to be s
8:25 PM
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bogus MX -> blacklist service viable?
McDonald, Dan wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 21:58 +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>>> provide this hosted (i.e. I'm thinking of offering), b
McDonald, Dan wrote:
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 21:58 +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Hi!
provide this hosted (i.e. I'm thinking of offering), but instead of ONLY
log it somehow feed / create a blacklist based on this?
I'm not as familiar with blacklists as many of you, but the network /
Hi!
defermx..com
bogusmx..com
provide this hosted (i.e. I'm thinking of offering), but instead of ONLY
log it somehow feed / create a blacklist based on this?
I'm not as familiar with blacklists as many of you, but the network /
smtp / logging side of this is easy for me to implement.
I'm thi
Steve Radich wrote:
What's everyone's opinion on something like:
defermx..com
bogusmx..com
provide this hosted (i.e. I'm thinking of offering), but instead of ONLY
log it somehow feed / create a blacklist based on this?
I'm not as familiar with blacklists as many of you, but the network /
sm
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 21:58 +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > provide this hosted (i.e. I'm thinking of offering), but instead of ONLY
> > log it somehow feed / create a blacklist based on this?
> >
> > I'm not as familiar with blacklists as many of you, but the network /
> > smtp / lo
Hi!
provide this hosted (i.e. I'm thinking of offering), but instead of ONLY
log it somehow feed / create a blacklist based on this?
I'm not as familiar with blacklists as many of you, but the network /
smtp / logging side of this is easy for me to implement.
I'm thinking make this a very publ
13 matches
Mail list logo
