On 3 May 2002, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> Actually, on second thoughts, maybe we should start to do a DB based URI
> eval rule? Having a new rule for every single URI would kill
> performance. Someone post a bug if you think that's a good idea.
Why not use the existing DNS blacklist mechanisms? Feed
On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 20:08, PremierNET Abuse wrote:
> No relay it appears, and submitting it to Razor seems pointless at this point.
> Looks like the ruleset for "pr0n" words is going to continue to grow.
> http://YoungestChicks.com
> http://AmateurYouth.com
> http://DrunkTeenPics.com
> http://T
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> 1. X-UIDL is often added by legitimate mailer like UW-IMAP and such,
> but that format of the string looks suspicious to me.
I get that X-UIDL format from the a server that advertises itself as QPOP
-- don't recall if that's qpopper or something else.
Hmm, 2 interesting things in the message there:
1. X-UIDL is often added by legitimate mailer like UW-IMAP and such, but that
format of the string looks suspicious to me.
2. Never before seen a Comment: header containing a unique ID like that
C
PremierNET Abuse wrote:
PA> Return-Path: <[EMAI
No relay it appears, and submitting it to Razor seems pointless at this point.
Looks like the ruleset for "pr0n" words is going to continue to grow.
---
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from arcturus.whitcon.net (arcturus.whitcon.net [65.171.144.13])
by mail
