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
18 matches
Mail list logo
