-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to Razor;
> rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting legitimate
> email as Spam to Razor?
Well, AFAICT razor seems to derive keyword
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 at 12:00:44AM -0500, andrew lattis wrote:
> --
> :0fw
> | /usr/bin/spamassassin
>
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> spam
> --
>
> or you could put a
>
> --
> :0
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> $DEFAULT
> --
>
> before that to have most debian emails avoid the check.
The source of m
Raymond Wood:
> Someone else mentioned that one should also remove the Debian
> 'unsubscribe' line at the end of the offending email. Since
> this is more work than simply forwarding the email unchanged to
> Razor, can you or someone else confirm whether this additional
> step is really necessary?
Hiya Debian,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:23:11PM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> Please do not have your procmail or anything else automatically mark
> mail sent from debian's list as spam. Several valid emails have ended
> up in my "Junk" folder because someone is reporting them to razor.
I n
also sprach Anne Carasik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.12.02.1703 +0100]:
> Port 113 is auth/identd.
>
> IMHO, it makes sense to not let these in through your
> firewall.
Yes. You should DROP the Windoze crap (135-139, 445) and REJECT the
ident requests. or else you might have to wait ages to connect
Hi all,
I'm running Apache on a Woody machine, and I can't figure
out for the life of me how to disable certain insecure HTTP
methods like PROPFIND and PUT.
Can someone please help me out? I've been searching through
the docs and google, and I'm hoping I just overlooked something
obvious.
TIA,
This is what people suggest for Subversion:
AuthType Basic
AuthName "Subversion repository"
AuthUserFile /usr/local/etc/apache2/svn-pass
Require valid-user
DAV svn
SVNPath /var/svn/
Anne Carasik wrote:
> I'm running Apache on a Woody machine, and I can't figure
> out for the life of me how to disable certain insecure HTTP
> methods like PROPFIND and PUT.
Don't run software that answers requests with these methods if you
don't want them enabled, nothing in apache (1.3 anyway)
Hi Anne,
> I'm running Apache on a Woody machine, and I can't figure
> out for the life of me how to disable certain insecure HTTP
> methods like PROPFIND and PUT.
I hope this helps:
http://www.daemon.be/~maarten/apache-1.3.27-stripping.patch
Limit and LimitExcept are also possible solutions, b
Hi. Can you help me. Who do I report the above to. I have 2 firewalls running
and tonight I was attacked from the same address 172 times in less than an
hour. These people want banning off the net. It is certainly a violation of
my privacy. A dozen times is an excuse but 172, I ask you. Please c
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 at 09:19:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi. Can you help me. Who do I report the above to. I have 2 firewalls running
> and tonight I was attacked from the same address 172 times in less than an
> hour. These people want banning off the net. It is certainly a violation
or use tcpwrappers and block them all together, or better yet,
use Iptables and write a rule.
g'times
dan
On Tuesday 03 December 2002 21:05, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 at 09:19:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi. Can you help me. Who do I report the above to. I h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to Razor;
> rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting legitimate
> email as Spam to Razor?
Well, AFAICT razor seems to derive keyword
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 at 12:00:44AM -0500, andrew lattis wrote:
> --
> :0fw
> | /usr/bin/spamassassin
>
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> spam
> --
>
> or you could put a
>
> --
> :0
> * ^TO.*@lists.debian.org
> $DEFAULT
> --
>
> before that to have most debian emails avoid the check.
The source
Raymond Wood:
> Someone else mentioned that one should also remove the Debian
> 'unsubscribe' line at the end of the offending email. Since
> this is more work than simply forwarding the email unchanged to
> Razor, can you or someone else confirm whether this additional
> step is really necessary?
Hiya Debian,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:23:11PM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> Please do not have your procmail or anything else automatically mark
> mail sent from debian's list as spam. Several valid emails have ended
> up in my "Junk" folder because someone is reporting them to razor.
I n
also sprach Anne Carasik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.12.02.1703 +0100]:
> Port 113 is auth/identd.
>
> IMHO, it makes sense to not let these in through your
> firewall.
Yes. You should DROP the Windoze crap (135-139, 445) and REJECT the
ident requests. or else you might have to wait ages to connect
Hi all,
I'm running Apache on a Woody machine, and I can't figure
out for the life of me how to disable certain insecure HTTP
methods like PROPFIND and PUT.
Can someone please help me out? I've been searching through
the docs and google, and I'm hoping I just overlooked something
obvious.
TIA,
This is what people suggest for Subversion:
AuthType Basic
AuthName "Subversion repository"
AuthUserFile /usr/local/etc/apache2/svn-pass
Require valid-user
DAV svn
SVNPath /var/svn/
Anne Carasik wrote:
> I'm running Apache on a Woody machine, and I can't figure
> out for the life of me how to disable certain insecure HTTP
> methods like PROPFIND and PUT.
Don't run software that answers requests with these methods if you
don't want them enabled, nothing in apache (1.3 anyway)
Hi Anne,
> I'm running Apache on a Woody machine, and I can't figure
> out for the life of me how to disable certain insecure HTTP
> methods like PROPFIND and PUT.
I hope this helps:
http://www.daemon.be/~maarten/apache-1.3.27-stripping.patch
Limit and LimitExcept are also possible solutions, b
Hi. Can you help me. Who do I report the above to. I have 2 firewalls running
and tonight I was attacked from the same address 172 times in less than an
hour. These people want banning off the net. It is certainly a violation of
my privacy. A dozen times is an excuse but 172, I ask you. Please c
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 at 09:19:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi. Can you help me. Who do I report the above to. I have 2 firewalls running
> and tonight I was attacked from the same address 172 times in less than an
> hour. These people want banning off the net. It is certainly a violation
or use tcpwrappers and block them all together, or better yet,
use Iptables and write a rule.
g'times
dan
On Tuesday 03 December 2002 21:05, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 at 09:19:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi. Can you help me. Who do I report the above to. I h
24 matches
Mail list logo
