From: Dan Mahoney, System Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 2007, October 08 10:33
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Rob McEwen wrote:
FWIW... that IP, 220.226.197.15, is currently listed on four spam
blacklists (RBLs):
1) uceprotect
2) no-more-funn
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Bret Miller wrote:
sa-update does NOT feed a local blocklist generated by *my*
particular
corpus of spam emails. Think of it as the RBL equivalent of
sitewide-bayes. Or think of it as a way of SA saying when
I get twelve
spams of score 10+ from ip 208.23.118.172...I
Or think of it as a way of SA saying when I get twelve spams of
score 10+ from ip 208.23.118.172...I will feed the auto-expiring RBL,
which *SENDMAIL* works off of, thus keeping my *SPAMASSASSIN* load
lower. Thus a spam deluge via a dictionary attack that may take hours
is mitigated in the
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
sa-update does NOT feed a local blocklist generated by *my* particular
corpus of spam emails. Think of it as the RBL equivalent of
sitewide-bayes. Or think of it as a way of SA saying when I get twelve
spams of score 10+ from ip 208.23.118.172...I will feed
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Steven Kurylo wrote:
Or think of it as a way of SA saying when I get twelve spams of score 10+
from ip 208.23.118.172...I will feed the auto-expiring RBL, which
*SENDMAIL* works off of, thus keeping my *SPAMASSASSIN* load lower. Thus a
spam deluge via a dictionary attack
Parsing the SA logs would be easy, but the connecting IP isn't listed
there.
As I mentioned, I'm parsing exim's logs. It contains the spam score and
the IP address.
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Steven Kurylo wrote:
Parsing the SA logs would be easy, but the connecting IP isn't listed
there.
As I mentioned, I'm parsing exim's logs. It contains the spam score and the
IP address.
Oh, that's true enough. I was musing on parsing my own logfiles as
opposed to
Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Steven Kurylo wrote:
Parsing the SA logs would be easy, but the connecting IP isn't listed
there.
As I mentioned, I'm parsing exim's logs. It contains the spam score and the
IP address.
Oh, that's true enough. I was musing on
On 06.10.07 11:51, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
I checked on this email. My system is right: it is an spf soft-fail. At
this point, ninety nine percent of people who set up SPF are going to be
setting ~all and not understanding the difference between ~all and -all.
And this did
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Rob McEwen wrote:
FWIW... that IP, 220.226.197.15, is currently listed on four spam
blacklists (RBLs):
1) uceprotect
2) no-more-funn
3) psbl
4) ivmSIP.com (mine)
On 07.10.07 05:55, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
My problem is: blocklists come and go, and some
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Rob McEwen wrote:
FWIW... that IP, 220.226.197.15, is currently listed on four spam
blacklists (RBLs):
1) uceprotect
2) no-more-funn
3) psbl
4) ivmSIP.com (mine)
On 07.10.07 05:55, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
My
On 07.10.07 05:55, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
My problem is: blocklists come and go, and some blocklists, when they
go, do things like hang up because they're being flooded, thus slowing
my mail processes or flag all mail as spam or hand out stale data
that
hasn't changed at all in
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Rob McEwen wrote:
Dan,
FWIW... that IP, 220.226.197.15, is currently listed on four spam blacklists
(RBLs):
1) uceprotect
2) no-more-funn
3) psbl
4) ivmSIP.com (mine)
My problem is: blocklists come and go, and some blocklists, when they
go, do things like hang up
Message at bottom.
I checked on this email. My system is right: it is an spf soft-fail. At
this point, ninety nine percent of people who set up SPF are going to be
setting ~all and not understanding the difference between ~all and -all.
And this did constitute a fail (i.e. a forgery), but
On 06.10.07 11:51, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
I checked on this email. My system is right: it is an spf soft-fail. At
this point, ninety nine percent of people who set up SPF are going to be
setting ~all and not understanding the difference between ~all and -all.
And this did
Dan,
FWIW... that IP, 220.226.197.15, is currently listed on four spam
blacklists (RBLs):
1) uceprotect
2) no-more-funn
3) psbl
4) ivmSIP.com (mine)
The first two are FP-risky for outright blocking, but can be useful in
a scoring environment. The latter two are much more safe for outright
16 matches
Mail list logo