Ted Mittelstaedt wrote on Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:27:07 -0800:
It simply means that sites WITHOUT a PTR are still fully compliant mailers.
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
This has nothing to do with RFC-compliance, but with policy, well
accepted policy.
On 11.01.10 20:42, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Policy
On 12.01.10 06:48, Christian Brel wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m66a5a2ae
Anyone seen script like that?
IT's the kind of content that should be captured by clamav imho.
clamav does have some kind og javascript decopding engine.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ;
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.01.10 06:48, Christian Brel wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m66a5a2ae
Anyone seen script like that?
IT's the kind of content that should be captured by clamav imho.
It's plain spam - personally I don't want clamav to deal with spam.
clamav does have some
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:44 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.01.10 06:48, Christian Brel wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m66a5a2ae
Anyone seen script like that?
IT's the kind of content that should be captured by clamav imho.
clamav does have some kind og javascript decopding
On 12/01/2010 06:28, Chip M. wrote:
Presently it renders them as plain text. I'm fully aware of the
potential problems with it. Ideally I'd like to be able to render
those parts as HTML, but I need to be 100% sure that I've stripped
out anything dangerous (including embedded remote content by
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:15:32AM +, Mike Cardwell wrote:
On 12/01/2010 06:28, Chip M. wrote:
Presently it renders them as plain text. I'm fully aware of the
potential problems with it. Ideally I'd like to be able to render
those parts as HTML, but I need to be 100% sure that I've
Ted, sorry, but your case is lost (since long, look around) and I won't
bite in such an off-topic discussion here. Please stop telling others that
refusing to accept mail from non-rDNS machines is incorrect. If you
*prefer* to handle this at SA level, that's your choice and you can tell
that.
hi -- is this still occurring with latest snapshots? If so, could you
open a ticket at our bugzilla?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 21:00, David Bayle david.ba...@zerospam.ca wrote:
Hy,
Our setup is:
- Ubuntu 8.04 ( 2.6.26 )
- Trying to setup snapshots from
On Tuesday January 12 2010 11:54:55 Justin Mason wrote:
hi -- is this still occurring with latest snapshots? If so, could you
open a ticket at our bugzilla?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 21:00, David Bayle david.ba...@zerospam.ca wrote:
- Trying to setup snapshots from
Christian Brel wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:44 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.01.10 06:48, Christian Brel wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m66a5a2ae
Anyone seen script like that?
IT's the kind of content that should be captured by clamav imho.
clamav does have some kind og
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:15:41 +0100
Per Jessen p...@computer.org wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:44 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.01.10 06:48, Christian Brel wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m66a5a2ae
Anyone seen script like that?
IT's the kind of
unsubscribe
Report the abuse to Google and reject any mail from
@listserv.bounces.google.com
Trademark violation? http://www.lsoft.com/corporate/trademark.asp
I thought this was faked the first time I saw it.
Joseph Brennan
Columbia University Information Technology
I'm sure there's a straight forward way of doing this, but after several of
hours searching, I can't find it.
The problem is spam with a faked 'From:' field. Spammers are sending e-mails
to our domain with the 'From:' field set to a valid e-mail address from our
domain. Here's an edited
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:44 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.01.10 06:48, Christian Brel wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m66a5a2ae
Anyone seen script like that?
I'm just interested in the kind of java-script(?) munging that
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:56:09 -0800 (PST)
John Hardin jhar...@impsec.org wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:44 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.01.10 06:48, Christian Brel wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m66a5a2ae
Callum Millard wrote on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:17:44 +:
Postfix
Postfix? Easy.
smtpd_sender_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated,
check_recipient_access hash:/etc/mail/allow_recipients,
reject_non_fqdn_sender, reject_unknown_sender_domain, check_sender_access
On 12/01/2010 10:24, Henrik K wrote:
Presently it renders them as plain text. I'm fully aware of the
potential problems with it. Ideally I'd like to be able to render
those parts as HTML, but I need to be 100% sure that I've stripped
out anything dangerous (including embedded remote content
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Callum Millard wrote:
: The problem is spam with a faked 'From:' field. Spammers are sending
: e-mails to our domain with the 'From:' field set to a valid e-mail
: address from our domain.
Key question: Can your users send mail 'From' their internal addresses via
ANY
Callum Millard wrote:
[snip]
The problem is spam with a faked 'From:' field. Spammers are sending
e-mails to our domain with the 'From:' field set to a valid e-mail
address from our domain.[snip]
SPF was designed just for that, not only to prevent others from
accepting fake messages that
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Callum Millard wrote:
: The problem is spam with a faked 'From:' field. Spammers are sending
: e-mails to our domain with the 'From:' field set to a valid e-mail
: address from our domain.
Unfortunately, if you permit use of
Mike Cardwell wrote on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:22:44 +:
It handles remote
content like images and CSS fine
tip: I would not handle remote content at all as this may lead to account
verification.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Per Jessen wrote:
Christian Brel wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:44 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.01.10 06:48, Christian Brel wrote:
http://pastebin.com/m66a5a2ae
Anyone seen script like that?
I'm just interested in the kind of
I'm just interested in the kind of java-script(?) munging that has
gone on there and what it is in 'English' for want of a better
phrase.
Nothing was munged, it's just random text.
If so, what's the point to it?
By no means a JS coder, and haven't dug deeper to find out, but couldn't
it be
On Tue 12 Jan 2010 07:48:23 AM CET, Christian Brel wrote
http://pastebin.com/m66a5a2ae
X-Virus-Status: Infected (Sanesecurity.Junk.25057.UNOFFICIAL)
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Jason Bertoch wrote:
By no means a JS coder, and haven't dug deeper to find out, but couldn't
it be pre-compiled JS and not just random text?
Doubtful. I don't believe JavaScript has a bytecode or any other (except
in some JavaScript engines internal representation) compiled format.
Francis
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Jason Bertoch wrote:
I'm just interested in the kind of java-script(?) munging that has
gone on there and what it is in 'English' for want of a better
phrase.
Nothing was munged, it's just random text.
If so, what's the point to it?
By no means a JS
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:41:00 +0100
Benny Pedersen m...@junc.org wrote:
On Tue 12 Jan 2010 07:48:23 AM CET, Christian Brel wrote
http://pastebin.com/m66a5a2ae
X-Virus-Status: Infected (Sanesecurity.Junk.25057.UNOFFICIAL)
Err, yes - I had already *highlighted* that, it was posted because
28 matches
Mail list logo
