Matt Sergeant said:
> > So, you haven't heard about drive-by spamming? You find an open wireless
> > lan connection and sit in somebody's front drive and spam away for a while.
>
> It's a myth. Don't believe everything you read. There are far more open
> relays than you could ever possibly ne
Kerry Nice wrote:
> From: "Daniel Rogers"
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:29:08PM -0700, Matthew Cline wrote:
> > > Geez, that's worse than using open relays. To what depths *won't*
> spammers
> > > sink to?
> >
> > None, clearly. It's only a matter of time before they start breaking in
> to
> > Why do I have a feeling that not even making spam (and spamming)
> > completely illegal would stop it at this point?
>
> Hasn't worked too well for pot, has it?
>
I really don't think you'll find government officials in Santa Cruz, CA
handing out spamming tools. Pot, yes. Spamming stuff? Dou
Daniel Rogers wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 02:25:59PM -0400, Kerry Nice wrote:
>> So, you haven't heard about drive-by spamming? You find an open wireless
>> lan connection and sit in somebody's front drive and spam away for a
>> while.
>
> No, but I can't hardly say as I'm surprised.
It's s
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 02:25:59PM -0400, Kerry Nice wrote:
> So, you haven't heard about drive-by spamming? You find an open wireless
> lan connection and sit in somebody's front drive and spam away for a while.
No, but I can't hardly say as I'm surprised.
Why do I have a feeling that not even
From: "Daniel Rogers"
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:29:08PM -0700, Matthew Cline wrote:
> > Geez, that's worse than using open relays. To what depths *won't*
spammers
> > sink to?
>
> None, clearly. It's only a matter of time before they start breaking in
to
> people's houses to send mail on thei
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, SpamTalk wrote:
> I don't have time to point you to the url, I searched metacrawler for mySQL
> replication and in one of the references it stated that you could not cross
> platform replicate as the *.myd and *.myi files were not binary compatible
That's not "replication," t
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:40 PM
To: Robert Strickler
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] URL blacklist
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:56:31AM -0500, Robert Strickler wrote:
> Original proposal posted December 2001, heh. "Nothing new under the
> sun".
>
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:56:31AM -0500, Robert Strickler wrote:
> Original proposal posted December 2001, heh. "Nothing new under the sun".
>
> To answer my own question, mySQL _does_ do replication the bad news is that
> the files are not OS/archetecture agnostic, you cannot replicate between
--Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 4:52 AM
To: SpamTalk
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] URL blacklist
SpamTalk said:
> Probably better than the "spam phrases" approach would be the database
> appr
SpamTalk said:
> Probably better than the "spam phrases" approach would be the database
> approach as currently used for white/black listing.
> Any way to tie that to an XML retrieval from a list of central repositories?
> Does mySQL do replication? A properly done XML would let us eyeball the li
om: Daniel Rogers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 7:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] URL blacklist
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 04:09:48PM -0500, SpamTalk wrote:
> Shouldn't a list such as this this be a part of the next release in
> the same ma
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:29:08PM -0700, Matthew Cline wrote:
> Geez, that's worse than using open relays. To what depths *won't* spammers
> sink to?
None, clearly. It's only a matter of time before they start breaking in to
people's houses to send mail on their computers.
We even had one a
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 04:09:48PM -0500, SpamTalk wrote:
> Shouldn't a list such as this this be a part of the next release in the same
> manner as frequent spam phases?
I'm happy to provide my list, either for just a couple people, or for
inclusion in the distro.
The only problem is that there
On Monday 30 September 2002 09:20 am, Daniel Rogers wrote:
> These message are being sent by (apparently) exploiting machines that have
> been subjected to a particular virus, or are in some way vulnerable to this
> abuse. I've had two of my dialup users' machines used for this spam in the
> las
Shouldn't a list such as this this be a part of the next release in the same
manner as frequent spam phases?
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Burgess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:45 PM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] URL blacklist
D
Daniel Rogers wrote:
> Personally, I just have some (rather large) body tests in my local.cf with
> bad domains in 'em.
Please post these to the list if they're not already
available somewhere.
Thanks very much
Andy
---
This sf.net email is s
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 08:32:55AM -0500, Dan Abernathy wrote:
> I'm seeing quite a few porn spams lately that SA is letting through. These
> are text messages with wording "innocent" enough not to trigger SA, but
> peppered with links to terra.es hosted porn sites.
Yeah, I've been getting those
I'm seeing quite a few porn spams lately that SA is letting through. These are text
messages with wording "innocent" enough not to trigger SA, but peppered with links to
terra.es hosted porn sites.
Any chance we could have a user-configured blacklist section that checks the body for
URL matche
19 matches
Mail list logo
