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 runnin
> 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
>
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:11:13 -0800
"jdow" wrote:
> From: "Rob McEwen"
> 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
From: "Rob McEwen"
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.
Still doesn't ans
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. Per
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 ou
jdow wrote:
From: "Rob McEwen"
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.
Properly known
From: "Christian Brel"
Sent: Tuesday, 2009/December/15 11:54
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:01:51 -0800
"jdow" wrote:
Perhaps are some kind of spammer trying to divert attention from
yourself?
I have longer bona fides on this list than I suspect you
do and my partner is a currently inactive SARE
From: "Rob McEwen"
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.
{^_^}
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:01:51 -0800
"jdow" wrote:
> From: "Charles Gregory"
> 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
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
From: "Charles Gregory"
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
defaults, are carried o
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 th
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 th
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
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
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' themselve
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 where
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
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 res
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 m
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 external
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 favorably
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 get
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
