On Sun, Sep 05, 1999 at 01:45:57PM +0100, Frankie Fisher was heard to state:
> This thread has been going on for a few days, and noone seems to have said
> very much about junkbuster.
I personally use JunkBuster (and have been for a long time), and I have
a pretty good blocklist (which I have buil
On 05-Sep-99 Martin Fluch wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, Pollywog wrote:
>
>>
>> On 05-Sep-99 Frankie Fisher wrote:
>> >
>> > This thread has been going on for a few days, and noone seems to have
>> > said
>> > very much about junkbuster.
>>
>> I started installing it last night. I more or less
On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, Pollywog wrote:
>
> On 05-Sep-99 Frankie Fisher wrote:
> >
> > This thread has been going on for a few days, and noone seems to have
> > said
> > very much about junkbuster.
>
> I started installing it last night. I more or less have it working, but
> the sample files don't
On 05-Sep-99 Frankie Fisher wrote:
>
> This thread has been going on for a few days, and noone seems to have
> said
> very much about junkbuster.
I started installing it last night. I more or less have it working, but
the sample files don't have enough examples of acl list entries, for one
thin
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:26:28PM +0200, andreas palsson wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I am using Debian GNU/Linux as a nameserver, and I wonder how do I
> > > modify it to reject all lookups for stupid sites like
> > > "ad.doubleclick.net" or any other annoying banner-site?
> > > I've been
On Sat, Sep 04, 1999 at 02:36:57PM +0200, Lex Chive wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:26:28PM +0200, andreas palsson wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I am using Debian GNU/Linux as a nameserver, and I wonder how do I
> > modify it to reject all lookups for stupid sites like
> > "ad.doubleclick.net" or
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:26:28PM +0200, andreas palsson wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am using Debian GNU/Linux as a nameserver, and I wonder how do I
> modify it to reject all lookups for stupid sites like
> "ad.doubleclick.net" or any other annoying banner-site?
> I've been told to use something calle
On 03-Sep-99 Marcin Owsiany wrote:
>
> Isn't it the other way round?
> I can remember that "DENY" means "drop packet on the floor", while
> "REJECT"
> means to send back an ICMP packet saying: "connection refused"
> And when someone wants to connect to a port, on which nothing is
> listenning,
>
On 03-Sep-99 George Bonser wrote:
> There is an additional difference. If someone runs a port scan against a
> machine, anything that is denied will get no response. It will be as if
> there
> is nothing there. If you are rejecting traffic, they will be able to tell
> that
> there is something the
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 10:53:47PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> >> What about using REJECT instead of DENY? That way the browser should
> there is something there that they are not allowed to access. They can simply
> adjust their activity from a different location to see if they can gain access
>> What about using REJECT instead of DENY? That way the browser should
>> immediately be told that the destination (in this case
>> ad.doubleclick.net)
>> could not be reached.
>
> I believe DENY would cause the browser to time out, but not right away. I
> only use DENY for spam hosts/nets so t
On 03-Sep-99 Patrick Olson wrote:
>
>> Read the IPCHAINS HOWTO. I think you can do something like:
>> ipchains -A input -s ad.doubleclick.net -j DENY
>> ipchains -A output -d ad.doubleclick.net -j DENY
>> You probably want to tailor the above to meet your needs.
>> This will block *any*
> Read the IPCHAINS HOWTO. I think you can do something like:
> ipchains -A input -s ad.doubleclick.net -j DENY
> ipchains -A output -d ad.doubleclick.net -j DENY
> You probably want to tailor the above to meet your needs.
> This will block *any* kind of connection to/from that site, a
On 03-Sep-99 Hwei Sheng TEOH wrote:
>
> Read the IPCHAINS HOWTO. I think you can do something like:
> ipchains -A input -s ad.doubleclick.net -j DENY
> ipchains -A output -d ad.doubleclick.net -j DENY
> You probably want to tailor the above to meet your needs.
> This will block *any*
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:26:28PM +0200, andreas palsson was heard to state:
> > I am using Debian GNU/Linux as a nameserver, and I wonder how do I
> > modify it to reject all lookups for stupid sites like
> > "ad.doubleclick.net" or any other annoyi
XFMail reverted to a reply address that was wrong; I had tested spam
filters with that address and when I changed it back, the change did not
"take". I think I fixed it now. Sorry about that. Had a spammer using a
bigfoot.com address and I was testing filters.
--
Andrew
On 02-Sep-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:26:28PM +0200, andreas palsson was heard to
> state:
>> I am using Debian GNU/Linux as a nameserver, and I wonder how do I
>> modify it to reject all lookups for stupid sites like
>> "ad.doubleclick.net" or any other annoying banne
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 10:26:28PM +0200, andreas palsson was heard to state:
> I am using Debian GNU/Linux as a nameserver, and I wonder how do I
> modify it to reject all lookups for stupid sites like
> "ad.doubleclick.net" or any other annoying banner-site?
> I've been told to use something call
Hello.
I am using Debian GNU/Linux as a nameserver, and I wonder how do I
modify it to reject all lookups for stupid sites like
"ad.doubleclick.net" or any other annoying banner-site?
I've been told to use something called "junkbuster" but I rather not run
anything extra on the host, I simply woul
19 matches
Mail list logo
