DJ Lucas wrote:
Good idea or bad?
Thanks for the responses. General consensus sounds not such a good
idea...I'll leave it behind.
Thanks again.
-- DJ Lucas
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
Well, it's good in some cases. I have my script for ipfw, offend back the
attackers, but sometimes it is an understanding...so, make your script
better to choose who is really bad. Should be better.
Banyan He
Mail&Web Security
Mobile: +86 13641777622
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skype: banyan.he
Em
Sahil Tandon wrote:
Graham Leggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DJ Lucas wrote:
Is there any pitfalls aside from the possibility of blocking a good
address every now and then? If the message is from a real person,
then I'll hear about it.
You won't hear about it, because that
Graham Leggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> Is there any pitfalls aside from the possibility of blocking a good
>> address every now and then? If the message is from a real person,
>> then I'll hear about it.
>
> You won't hear about it, because that person will be blocked
DJ Lucas wrote:
Is
there any pitfalls aside from the possibility of blocking a good
address every now and then? If the message is from a real person, then
I'll hear about it.
You won't hear about it, because that person will be blocked from
sending you mail.
In addition, the person bein
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Auto-blacklist what? sender, recipient and client vary, the content
stays the same. So what could you possibly and efficiently blacklist
here?
Sender. The point is to stop the message at the door, after the header,
instead of running through the content filters. I g
* DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello all.
>
> I was wondering if an auto-blacklist, generated weekly, based on SA's
> result, and taken directly from the mail log, is a good idea or not.
Auto-blacklist what? sender, recipient and client vary, the content
stays the same. So what could you poss
