Fred Bacon said:
> I was looking at the contents of a piece of spam this morning, when I
> saw something I've never seen before. I'm sure that its been around for
> some time, but I'm interested to know how this actually works.
>
> My guess is that the second address is the one used, but I'm not c
I was looking at the contents of a piece of spam this morning, when I
saw something I've never seen before. I'm sure that its been around for
some time, but I'm interested to know how this actually works.
My guess is that the second address is the one used, but I'm not certain
why it works. Is i
I am running RH 7.3, 2 processor. 600 mhz
each
i upgraded from 2.54 > 2.6
my load is about avg. 3.0
is that good / normal?
At 11:44 AM 11/4/2003, Matthew Thomas wrote:
It didn't get marked as spam since it appears to come from us, though the IP
address is located in Puerto Rico. I was just wondering how they get
biocontrolsys.com associated with their IP address. Is it a completely
manufactured (not "real") header?
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 04 November 2003 16:44
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Curious about a header.
>
>
> I received a spam with the header below.
>
> Return-Path: <[E
I received a spam with the header below.
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from biocontrolsys.com ([66.50.175.12])
by gateway.biocontrolsys.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id
hA4G6EXp016886
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 08:06:16 -0800
Received: from mike [66.50.1
Hello,
we're runnig spamassassin in the sitewide model with spamd + spamc on
a SuSE 7.1.
Configured as following:
/etc/procmailrc
***
:0fw
| spamc -f
Starting 'spamd' like this:
***
/usr/bin/spamd -a -d -i 0.0.0.0 -L -P -s -u spamd -x
This will run, but th
