On 2010-03-30 01:29, Brent Kennedy wrote:
Graylisting does work.
I know it works. That's why I said I like it because it stops spam. Been
using my own implementation for years.
I think after I turned it on, the botnet plug-in got bored. My stats for it
dropped significantly. So that’s
Jonas Eckerman wrote on Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:52:43 +0200:
I suspect that If the botnets were short on bandwidth and computer
power, the programmers would have fix those issues a long time ago. And
the simple fact that they still haven't adapted to greylisting indicates
that it's impact is
Jonas Eckerman wrote on Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:41:01 +0200:
Unless the greylisting is done *after* receiving the body. Of course,
this will spank innocent senders as well.
Ooops? It spanks *yourself*. Good strategy.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
On 2010-03-30 13:31, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Jonas Eckerman wrote on Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:41:01 +0200:
Unless the greylisting is done *after* receiving the body. Of course,
this will spank innocent senders as well.
Ooops? It spanks *yourself*.
Not really. It does force us to accept the mail
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
On 2010-03-30 01:29, Brent Kennedy wrote:
I think after I turned it on, the botnet plug-in got bored. My stats
for it dropped significantly. So that’s my proof it does adversely
affect botnets.
No, that's your proof that it has a positive
Literally, Mega-Spam. I just got a spam with 1MB of images.
My suggestion has been made before, but I would like to ask that it now
be taken a bit more seriously. SA needs an option to allow efficient
'partial' scanning of large e-mails, so that, for example, we can
peform all the valuable
On 3/29/10 1:09 PM, Charles Gregory wrote:
Literally, Mega-Spam. I just got a spam with 1MB of images.
My suggestion has been made before, but I would like to ask that it
now be taken a bit more seriously. SA needs an option to allow efficient
'partial' scanning of large e-mails, so that,
Aw, is that shouting really necessary? Oh, yes, it is indeed -- you are
trying to get heard over on the dev list, so you need to be quite loud
from here... ;)
The dev list is what you want.
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:09 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
Literally, Mega-Spam. I just got a spam with
-in.
It would be good if SA could handle this though. The above are only
temporary solutions to a bigger problem.
-Brent
-Original Message-
From: Charles Gregory [mailto:cgreg...@hwcn.org]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 1:09 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: ATTN DEVELOPERS
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 16:23 -0400, Brent Kennedy wrote:
Wow, I knew this was coming at some point. I just figured it was too
expensive.
You did read the entire thread, right? :) There's nothing new about
this. Moreover, this still is a rare occurrence. Note even Charles, who
started this
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
You did read the entire thread, right? :) There's nothing new about
this. Moreover, this still is a rare occurrence. Note even Charles, who
started this thread, claims to have received *one* such spam. And it
appears to be his first. ;)
Last
Am Montag 29 März 2010 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 16:23 -0400, Brent Kennedy wrote:
Wow, I knew this was coming at some point. I just figured it was
too expensive.
You did read the entire thread, right? :) There's nothing new
about this. Moreover, this still is a
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 16:57 -0400, Charles Gregory wrote:
The spams I've seen so far look more 'amateur' than 'pro'. Easily tracable
IP's. Blacklistable domains. I'm just throwing my idea into the queue now
so that it can be smoothly integrated with a future release. We've got
plenty of
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 23:01 +0200, Mathias Homann wrote:
I think it has, I get about 2-5 mega spams per day by now.
and I can't do greylisting because I have to fetchmail from a central
mail server at my hoster that is not under my direct control.
And no, moving from a vhost to a root server
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Brent Kennedy wrote:
My suggestion would be to use graylisting, force them to send that 1MB
message twice.
While greylisting will help, it won't spank the offender in that manner.
It will postpone the message very early in the SMTP exchange, not after
the body has been
We've got plenty of time, but I suggest not waiting until it becomes a
big problem before desperately rushing to fix it :)
Depends on how one defines where a problem starts to become 'big'.
For me the problem of large messages was big enough early last year so
that I had to implement a
On 2010-03-30 00:12, John Hardin wrote:
While greylisting will help, it won't spank the offender in that manner.
It will postpone the message very early in the SMTP exchange, not after
the body has been received.
Unless the greylisting is done *after* receiving the body. Of course,
this will
every now and then. Ahh but the learning db might be an issue
oh well just a thought.
-Brent
-Original Message-
From: Jonas Eckerman [mailto:jonas_li...@frukt.org]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:41 PM
To: John Hardin
Subject: Re: ATTN DEVELOPERS: Mega-Spam
On 2010-03-30 00:12, John
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Brent Kennedy wrote:
Ya know, this got me thinking. Wonder if I could create a VM with all the
settings and a script to customize the setup. Then organizations could just
deploy the VM. Sort of an all in one deployment. Just update the VM
template every now and then.
19 matches
Mail list logo
