On 12.11.09 13:55, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
I don't know about Linux viruses; BUT, I do remember less than ten years
ago when it was virtually impossible to build a Linux box with a hot
online connection, because you would get hacked before you could even
download the patches. I had a
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.11.09 13:55, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
I don't know about Linux viruses; BUT, I do remember less than ten years
ago when it was virtually impossible to build a Linux box with a hot
online connection, because you would
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 10:58 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.11.09 13:55, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
I don't know about Linux viruses; BUT, I do remember less than ten
years
ago when it was virtually
Since I didn't clearly write the part you are reacting on, it would be nice
from you to remove my name from the begin, as you removed the rest of
e-mail.
On 13.11.09 10:24, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Matus has emailed me *off list* and asked me to point out that there is an
error in
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.11.09 13:55, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
I don't know about Linux viruses; BUT, I do remember less than ten years
ago when it was virtually impossible to build a Linux box with a hot
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 11:40 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
Am I the only one who thints that issues clearly off-topic should be sent
off-list?
Your response was to correct an onlist reply to an onlist remark. Is
there some reason why you would feel it appropriate to off-list that?
Caveats such as week passwords, open ports and advertising insecure services
are the domain of poor administration and understanding - they are not
Operating
System dependent.
Exempting organised spam gangs and their infrastructure, it's probably fair
to say that
most of the spam I
On fre 13 nov 2009 18:26:07 CET, wrote
One admin admitted that they were hacked through login guest / pass guest
and this is a real hack :)
--
xpoint
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 17:26 +, haman...@t-online.de wrote:
I've only used Red Hat flavours of Linux since RH 6.2 so I can't speak
for other distros, but here's my experience.
Where IPs looked like machines in a computer center, I occasionally
had a closer look and found newly created
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Dream on. Obviously your a pro-Windows person and anti-Linux
person and you cannot tolerate your image of Windows being torn down.
I seriously doubt Giampaolo is 'pro-windows', and your argument started
with me, thinking that somehow I was
LuKreme wrote:
On 11-Nov-2009, at 18:34, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I will point out that MacOS 7, os* os9 were HIGHLY virus-prone,
yet there were far fewer of them than OSX today.
Er… that is simply not true. Not in anyway.
As I recall, there were a total of 31 viruses for System 7 and one
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 11-Nov-2009, at 18:34, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I will point out that MacOS 7, os* os9 were HIGHLY virus-prone,
yet there were far fewer of them than OSX today.
Er… that is simply not true. Not in anyway.
As I recall, there were a total of 31
Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
LuKreme wrote:
On 11-Nov-2009, at 18:34, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I will point out that MacOS 7, os* os9 were HIGHLY virus-prone,
yet there were far fewer of them than OSX today.
Er… that is simply not true. Not in anyway.
As I recall, there
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
I also heard stories of my son doing battle with hackers who had
gotten into his Linux system.
Keep in mind that those were not the Linus-written Linux programs, those
were programs like Telnet, Sendmail, etc. which
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Dream on. Obviously your a pro-Windows person and anti-Linux
person and you cannot tolerate your image of Windows being torn down.
I seriously doubt Giampaolo is 'pro-windows', and your argument started
with me,
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
I also heard stories of my son doing battle with hackers who had
gotten into his Linux system.
Keep in mind that those were not the Linus-written Linux programs,
those were programs like Telnet,
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
PS, if your really the SA porter, thanks for your effort!
easy enough to verify:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=scheidellstype=maintainer
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259
*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Certified
Michael Scheidell wrote:
...omissis...
If our clients were DELIBERATELY spamming, say they thought they
were going to send out a marketing mail or some such, then you would
be correct.
But they were not. They were simply using the largest software
company on Earth's products -
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Michael Scheidell wrote:
...omissis...
If our clients were DELIBERATELY spamming, say they thought they
were going to send out a marketing mail or some such, then you
would be correct.
But they were not. They were simply using the largest software
company on
On 11-Nov-2009, at 18:34, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I will point out that MacOS 7, os* os9 were HIGHLY virus-prone,
yet there were far fewer of them than OSX today.
Er… that is simply not true. Not in anyway.
As I recall, there were a total of 31 viruses for System 7 and one CD-ROM worm
for
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 16:51 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Hi All,
We have a customer who had a compromised mailserver, they fixed the
server but are apparently still blacklisted by this company called
CloudMark (www.cloudmark.com) that Comcast uses.
In Googling around I see that
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 16:51 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Hi All,
We have a customer who had a compromised mailserver, they fixed the
server but are apparently still blacklisted by this company called
CloudMark (www.cloudmark.com) that Comcast uses.
In
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
How can I? From what I know about razor-revoke, it's the recipients
who are using razor and who get messages that razor tags as spam who
are the ones that run this.
Their recipients who are saying that their messages are being marked
spam are comcast e-mail users. We
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
...omissis...
How can I? From what I know about razor-revoke, it's the recipients
who are using razor and who get messages that razor tags as spam who
are the ones that run this.
Their recipients who are saying that their messages are being marked
spam are
Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
Daniel J McDonald wrote:
...omissis...
How can I? From what I know about razor-revoke, it's the recipients
who are using razor and who get messages that razor tags as spam who
are the ones that run this.
Their recipients who are saying that their messages are being
Oh, come now; like calling Comcast is going to get you anywhere. Per:
http://www.spamresource.com/2009/10/top-five-tips-for-dealing-with.html
I've had success with Comcast. Been good to me.
Generic Abuse: http://postmaster.comcast.net/
Personally, I'd fill out Comcast's form at:
On 10-Nov-2009, at 08:48, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
I would presume, knowing Comcast, and knowing the average ability
of the typical Comcast e-mail user, that the razor-report and
rezor-revoke is being done silently, automatically, behind the
scenes. Perhaps when a user pulls a message out of
if I reply to the mailing list and not you directly, you should reply to
the mailing list.
Original Message
Subject:Re: Getting off the Cloudmark formerly spamnet blacklist
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:25:20 -0800
From: Ted Mittelstaedt t...@ipinc.net
Organization
Hi All,
We have a customer who had a compromised mailserver, they fixed the
server but are apparently still blacklisted by this company called
CloudMark (www.cloudmark.com) that Comcast uses.
In Googling around I see that Comcast just recently signed up
this company a month ago. This
29 matches
Mail list logo
