On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 12/16/2009 6:16 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
blabber... checkout SVN - follow dev list... HABEAS is history...
I believe the *point* here is that HABEAS is NOT 'history' for ordinary
systems
Still doesn't answer my question. Perhaps I'm dense. But to
spell out my question more explicitly:
what do you mean by personal response spam? Is that just
Richard's on-list responses we've all seen? Or something
else? (did I miss that part of the conversation?). And what
do you
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 23:07 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 12/14/2009 10:55 PM, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
I'd love to have the clamav unofficial signature families scored. I
have a fine guess as to how relevant they are, but it is just that - a
guess.
someone, somewhere is alreay
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 07:29 -0600, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
That's the issue with pulling all of the whitelists out of the scoring
mix - the whitelist components are part of the mix that allows 5 points
to indicate spam. And I was trying to counter the argument that we
should simply rip those
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Clarification: I, for one, was only proposing that the whitelisting
plugins and rules that query external databases are removed from the
standard ruleset and sa_update and placed in a separate library of
optional rules.
The 'issue' (as I see it) is
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Monday, 2009/December/14 12:35
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
If everyone could ignore the taunting, and just carry on, there wouldn't
be an issue.
The taunting *is* the issue. The rest of the arguments, about design and
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
--
Rob McEwen
http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
r...@invaluement.com
+1 (478) 475-9032
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:01:51 -0800
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
From: Charles Gregory cgreg...@hwcn.org
Sent: Monday, 2009/December/14 12:35
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
If everyone could ignore the taunting, and just carry on, there
wouldn't be an issue.
The
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 11:10
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
{^_^}
From: Christian Brel brel.spamassassin091...@copperproductions.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 11:54
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:01:51 -0800
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
Perhaps are some kind of spammer trying to divert attention from
yourself?
Snicker I have longer bona fides on this
jdow wrote:
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 11:10
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact
jdow wrote:
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
Still doesn't answer my question. Perhaps I'm dense. But to spell out
my
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Rob McEwen wrote:
jdow wrote:
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
Still doesn't answer my question.
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 13:13
jdow wrote:
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible cause and effect exists. I can neither prove nor disprove
it. the fact exists.
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:11:13 -0800
jdow j...@earthlink.net wrote:
From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 13:13
jdow wrote:
jdow wrote:
his response personal spam to this account has increased sharply
Uuh, what does that mean, exactly?
A possible
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Michael Hutchinson wrote:
If everyone could ignore the taunting, and just carry on, there wouldn't
be an issue.
The taunting *is* the issue. The rest of the arguments, about design and
defaults, are carried on by numerous individuals in a quite civilized
manner. But when
Charles Gregory wrote:
I ask again, on the issue of whitelists, is there a serious issue with
spammers targetting white-listed IP's as favored candidates for hacking?
I'm okay with the answer being 'no'. I'm sure people with large servers
and good statistics could answer this question. But I
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Bob O'Brien wrote:
I can mostly just offer opinion, and that would be that whitelisting is
not (yet) in wide enough use to have become a sufficiently attractive
target.
Which brings us back to the 'rational version' of the discussion about SA
weighing whitelists
May I suggest that handling whitelist or blacklist rules and any
associated plugins by packaging them as separately installable modules
may be of benefit to SA maintainers. The idea is to reduce the SA dev
workload by handing off responsibility for maintaining and bugfixing
such modules to
On 12/14/2009 10:23 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
May I suggest that handling whitelist or blacklist rules and any
associated plugins by packaging them as separately installable modules
may be of benefit to SA maintainers. The idea is to reduce the SA dev
workload by handing off responsibility for
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:23 +, Martin Gregorie wrote:
May I suggest that handling whitelist or blacklist rules and any
associated plugins by packaging them as separately installable modules
may be of benefit to SA maintainers. The idea is to reduce the SA dev
workload by handing off
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 22:39 +0100, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
your modules are all there already and much of it is already managed as
you suggest: they're called rules.. you can even switch them on or off,
or add your own modules /plugins/modules.
SA provides an Open Source FRAMEWORK which
On 12/14/2009 10:55 PM, Daniel J McDonald wrote:
I'd love to have the clamav unofficial signature families scored. I
have a fine guess as to how relevant they are, but it is just that - a
guess.
someone, somewhere is alreay converting ClamV signatures to HUGE (slow)
rule files, forgot
Hello,
The taunting *is* the issue. The rest of the arguments, about design
and
defaults, are carried on by numerous individuals in a quite civilized
manner. But when someone starts throwing arond stupid accusations, then
the person attacked focuses their efforts on 'defending' themselves,
On Dec 14, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
I ask again, on the issue of whitelists, is there a serious issue with
spammers targetting white-listed IP's as favored candidates for hacking?
I'm okay with the answer being 'no'. I'm sure people with large servers and
good statistics
25 matches
Mail list logo
