Is it your position that, as a vendor of antispam services, nobody
else should offer their services for a fee?
That would be strange indeed.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Dean Drako wrote:
>
> With respect to Barracuda Networks and Spamhaus.
>
> I expect, but I do not know, that Spamhaus prob
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 11:17 AM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Spamhaus...
>
> On Feb 21, 2010, at 1:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> >> Hint: n
> -Original Message-
> From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:02 AM
> To: Rich Kulawiec
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Spamhaus...
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> > Hint: nothing stops the spammers from pointin
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> You should not randomly respond to packets at arbitrary rates. If you do,
> you are being a bad Netizen for exactly this reason. See things like
> amplification attacks for why. ...
> --
Whether it's SMTP, TCP, or ICMP spam inv
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Joel M Snyder wrote:
> but the false positive count jumped by 112 messages per 10,000 (because
> APEWS was somehow having a lousy month).
>
> In general, the more reputation services you include, the more likely it is
> you're going to have false positives.
Chris
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 04:45:42PM -0500, James Heralds wrote:
> Call for papers: ISP-10, Orlando, USA, July 2010
This is fake conference spam. Same gang has been pummeling Usenet newsgroups
for years, has recently migrated to mailing lists. For some background, see:
http://copy-shake-p
It would be highly appreciated if you could share this announcement with
your colleagues, students and individuals whose research is in information
security, cryptography, privacy, and related areas.
Call for papers: ISP-10, Orlando, USA, July 2010
The 2010 International Conference on Informa
On Feb 21, 2010, at 1:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>> Hint: nothing stops the spammers from pointing the MX records for their
>> throwaway domains at somebody else's mail servers. Among other things.
>> MANY other things, unfortunately.
> C
On 2/21/2010 12:32 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, MAPS was the first to do it. Uribl.com
>>> currently does it (and does the sort of query aggregation across your
>>> entire? network) that I mentioned.
>>
>> Can you access M
>>> To the best of my knowledge, MAPS was the first to do it. Uribl.com
>>> currently does it (and does the sort of query aggregation across your
>>> entire? network) that I mentioned.
>>
>> Can you access MAPS without a subscription at all?
No. A low level subscription is pretty cheap, and I us
We are migrating our web server from platform A to mutually incompatible
platform B and as a result the 7-year-old DCL script I wrote that does
Looking Glass for us needs to be replaced. (from my comments, looks
like I stole the idea from e...@digex.net...)
I'm guessing that someone else has
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> > IMO, the original question in this thread was on-topic, but
unfortunately it
> > got very little discussion
>I like spamhaus, they run a quality list, but they want between $1900
>and $19000 per year for their rsync service and you have to
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, MAPS was the first to do it. Uribl.com
currently does it (and does the sort of query aggregation across your
entire? network) that I mentioned.
Can you access MAPS without a subscription at all?
At this point, I have
Am 21.02.10 10:25, schrieb Michelle Sullivan:
> As a matter of interest, who are the other current DNSBL's to do it?
dnswl.org currently does not do it, but bandwidth suckers are a pain.
The work is considerable: log aggregation, log review, trying to find a
responsible for the IPs and followin
Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
>> As a matter of interest, who are the other current DNSBL's to do it?
>
> To the best of my knowledge, MAPS was the first to do it. Uribl.com
> currently does it (and does the sort of query aggregation across your
> entire? netwo
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> s/mime detached signatures rooted in some ca that you trust are actually
> a rather good way of identifying the sender.
Joel,
Unfortunately signatures are more effective at confirming authenticity
than they are at refuting it. Even more unfo
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> Hint: nothing stops the spammers from pointing the MX records for their
> throwaway domains at somebody else's mail servers. Among other things.
> MANY other things, unfortunately.
Rich,
Clearly I shouldn't respond to any packets at all. A
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
> > As a matter of interest, who are the other current DNSBL's to do it?
>
> To the best of my knowledge, MAPS was the first to do it. Uribl.com currently
> does it
And SURBL.org.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch
Paul Vixie wrote:
> so, a uucp-only site should have upgraded to real smtp by now, and by not
> doing it they and their internet gateway are a joint menace to society?
>
> that seems overly harsh. there was a time (1986 or so?) when most of the
> MX RR's in DNS were smtp gateways for uucp-connecte
You should head over to the mail groups and ask this, more on topic there.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Hi
Messages we send from our mail sever always received at SPAM box in many Public
Mail servers like hotmail, yahoo, and gmail. We made a revers dns lookup, and
there is no spamming from our server, still messages go to junk.
how to solve this.
thanx
This message may contain confidential
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
As a matter of interest, who are the other current DNSBL's to do it?
To the best of my knowledge, MAPS was the first to do it. Uribl.com
currently does it (and does the sort of query aggregation across your
entire? network) that I mentioned.
-
Rich Kulawiec writes:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 08:20:36PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
>> Whine all you want about backscatter but until you propose a
>> comprehensive solution that's still reasonably compatible with RFC
>> 2821's section 3.7 you're just talking trash.
>
> We're well past that.
[ This discussion really needs to move to spam-l. ]
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 03:53:55PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
> I don't know what your spam intake looks like but in mine, 5% to 10%
> can't be ranked "high confidence" until checked by an eyeball mark 1.
> In my system, that fraction is a cand
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 07:49:25PM -0800, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> Right, because GCHQ doesn't/hasn't/never would do such a thing...
>
> At least the US has a written constitution and the concept of the people
> being sovereign.
>
> I'll take that over trusting "Her Majesty's..." whatever.
>
>
Matt Kelly (mjkelly) writes:
> >>You didn't specify what OS'es you deploy, but for Linux/Red Hat-like
> >>systems: PXE boot, Kickstart [1], Puppet [2], Bacula [3].
> >>PXE/Kickstart/Puppet can be managed with Cobbler [4]. Foreman [5]
> >>is an alternative for managing Puppet hosts.
>
>
> Any opt
Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> The original question, "what do you do (or have you done) when DNSBL-X
> approaches you saying that your network is hitting their public NS's
> too hard and wants you to pay for continued access?" is something I'd
> like to see some answers to. Despite the Subject:, Spamhaus i
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 06:27 +, John Levine wrote:
> In my experience, they're pretty reasonable. I would talk to them (or
> one of their datafeed sales agents) before assuming that they won't
> sell you the service you need.
They are indeed. In my day job, a large group of related members of
28 matches
Mail list logo
