At 00:17 28/07/2003 -0600, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Monday, Jul 28, 2003, at 00:03 US/Mountain, Justin Mason wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes:
On Friday, Jul 25, 2003, at 12:55 US/Mountain, Justin Mason wrote:
However, I have heard that spamcop's reporting tool will do a de
On Monday, Jul 28, 2003, at 00:03 US/Mountain, Justin Mason wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes:
On Friday, Jul 25, 2003, at 12:55 US/Mountain, Justin Mason wrote:
However, I have heard that spamcop's reporting tool will do a decent
job of it;
Not in my experience. We got blacklisted becau
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes:
> On Friday, Jul 25, 2003, at 12:55 US/Mountain, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> > However, I have heard that spamcop's reporting tool will do a decent
> > job of it;
>
> Not in my experience. We got blacklisted because a user on one of our
> mailing lists got infect
Justin Mason writes:
[...autoreporting]
Whoa -- that's a 2 day delay on posts to the SpamAssassin-talk list.
not good :(
--j.
---
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Fo
On Friday, Jul 25, 2003, at 12:55 US/Mountain, Justin Mason wrote:
However, I have heard that spamcop's reporting tool will do a decent
job
of it;
Not in my experience. We got blacklisted because a user on one of our
mailing lists got infected with a virus that sent something that got
tagged a
AFAIK, this is what a spamcop report does.
With the bonus that the spam source might be added to spamcop's RBL.
IMO, it would be a good addition to sa to have spamassassin -R report
to spamcop too. (Maybe a Net::Spam::Spamcop.pm would help ;)
[]'s
Raul Dias
Em Sex, 2003-07-25 às 13:50, [EMAIL
Matt Kettler writes:
>That and SA might not be able to accurately determine what IP needs to be
>reported.. (ie: is your first MX the most recent, or the second most recent
>received: line? is one of them forged to make it appear that a message went
>to your secondary MX, then to the primary an
At 12:24 PM 7/25/2003 -0500, mikea wrote:
Bad idea, I think.
Certainly you should not mail the whois contacts using an automated
tool, and I think it is not entirely wise to mail other mailboxes
using such a tool if there is no human in the loop.
Well, this part of your argument against it is so
double traffic. eek. didn't think of that.
since it would be a sitewide application though, it could just run
nightly and report cumulative amounts.
the real thing that i want to accomplish, is alerting bandwidth
providers of the activity.
whether its an abusive customer or an insecure box
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 12:50:02PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> i dont know how useful this would be, but i was thinking of a spam
> reporting tool that did the following:
> sends a message to root/webmaster/whatever of the mailing ip
> traceroutes the ip, and finds the location f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If most spam comes from a few servers... wouldn't this create a massive
DOS against those servers? Then again... that would stop spam wouldn't
it?
One problem I see with the approach is that it would double the traffic on
the web.
One thing I lik
i dont know how useful this would be, but i was thinking of a spam
reporting tool that did the following:
sends a message to root/webmaster/whatever of the mailing ip
traceroutes the ip, and finds the location facility and/or isp -- then
mails root/webmaster and all whois contacts for that comp
12 matches
Mail list logo
