On Thursday 02 September 2004 03:43 pm, Steve Sobol wrote:
> Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
> > Yes. Although Microsoft has refused to disclose what they have
> > actually applied for patents on, their license only applies to specific
> > parts of Sender-ID, which seems to imply that they did not apply
Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
Yes. Although Microsoft has refused to disclose what they have
actually applied for patents on, their license only applies to specific
parts of Sender-ID, which seems to imply that they did not apply for
patents on SPF itself. In any case, it is certainly seems safe
I don't think I'll be implementing Sender ID. Sounds like another MS
stab at open source to me:
On Sep 2, 2004, at 1:45 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
http://apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html
On the other side, SPF is really taking off if you look at the
acceptance graphs:
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:04 PM
>To: Chris Santerre
>Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Matthew Hunter; SATalk; SURBL Discuss
>Subject: Re: Applying SURBL against blog comment spammers
>
>
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MES
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Santerre writes:
> Which is NOT in SURBL!! (It will be today!) Because like Dr. Evil this is a
> pre-emptive Shhh! It is just a matter of time before this site is used in an
> email spam. I also see no difference between this blog spam and email
Yes. Although Microsoft has refused to disclose what they have
actually applied for patents on, their license only applies to specific
parts of Sender-ID, which seems to imply that they did not apply for
patents on SPF itself. In any case, it is certainly seems safe to
continue using SPF fo
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 12:28 PM
>To: Matthew Hunter
>Cc: SATalk; SURBL Discuss
>Subject: Re: Applying SURBL against blog comment spammers
>
>
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>Matthew H
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html
More like "Who needs patent problems?"
The position appears to be 100% on patents and licencing, not on the
technology or the concept.
Next question: presumably SPF, though now a subset of Sender-Id, is
still unen
AFAIK, nic.ar never had a whois service... only queries via web... in
fact, at one point, the output of the web query was a .gif
autogenerated...
I think it's now again plain text, so you should be able to
automatically query it using LWP or something along the lines (it only
accepts POSTs not GET
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 1:24 PM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Apache to Microsoft: who needs Sender-ID?
>
>
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>http://apache.org/foundation/doc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html
Kudos to Apache.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl -e"map{y/a-z/l-za-k/;print}shift" "Jjhi pcdiwt
At 12:19 PM 9/2/2004, Grant Baxter wrote:
Does anyone have any ideas as to why I can't send the GTUBE text from
"sample-spam.txt" to either myself or my wife? The emails just don't
show up.
That's odd.. are you using some kind of integration tool that wipes out
emails over a certain score?
BTW -
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dallas,
> >
> > after more than a month I'm back on-line... so I returned to
> > my usual SURBL reporting for Bill's list using
> > http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi
> >
> > However, for some reason, I can't post any domain
Good afternoon, Dallas,
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Dallas L. Engelken wrote:
> > after more than a month I'm back on-line... so I returned to
> > my usual SURBL reporting for Bill's list using
> > http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi
> >
> > However, for some reason, I can't post any domain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Hunter writes:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:36:29AM -0400, Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >-Original Message-
> > >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:24 AM
> > >To: SAT
>
> Hi Dallas,
>
> after more than a month I'm back on-line... so I returned to
> my usual SURBL reporting for Bill's list using
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi
>
> However, for some reason, I can't post any domain name ending in '.ar'
> (Argentina, my country) in the bl check
Jeff Chan wrote:
Are they advertising legitimate sites or bad guy sites?
Gambling sites, "pillz" sites, etc. The usual.
More insidious are the ones that link to legit blogs that have already
been spammed, as described here:
http://photomatt.net/2004/08/01/weeds-in-the-garden/
--
Kelson Vibber
S
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight Solutions wrote:
Which blogger are you using?
I moved my own blog over to Wordpress a couple of months ago and I haven't
had any issues with comment spammers since.
Oh, they hit us WordPress users too, just not as often as MT. Having it
automatically moderate comments
Does anyone have any ideas as to why I can't send the GTUBE text from
"sample-spam.txt" to either myself or my wife? The emails just don't
show up.
BTW - I had a disk crash, and decided to try SA 3.0 instead of
re-installing 2.6 and then having to turn around and install 3.0
shortly thereafter. I
At 11:16 AM 9/2/2004, exo dia wrote:
is someone going to update news.gmane.org to subscribe to the new
spamassassin list address?
it looks like gmane is still using the old address, as no new articles
for spamassassin are appearing there since the list move
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=spamassa
At 06:05 AM 9/2/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I search the signification of the Baysian tokens eg. U* , N:HContent-type:
, 8: etc etc
Where can i find this information ?
Look at Bayes.pm, it's a strange kind of short-hand used for headers and
URLs.
Disclaimer: I don't fully understand this code,
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:36:29AM -0400, Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:24 AM
> >To: SATalk
> >Cc: SURBL Discuss
> >Subject: Re: Applying SURBL against blog comment spamme
Hi,
I am trying to test the SPF capablities of SA-3.0-rc2 (also using perl
5.6.0, postfix 1.1.11, amavisd-new-20030616-p10). I have 2 instances of
postfix sandwiching amavisd-new which calls SA). I am using telnet from
my optonline.net machine setting the MAIL FROM: to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to my test
hello,
is someone going to update news.gmane.org to subscribe to the new
spamassassin list address?
it looks like gmane is still using the old address, as no new articles
for spamassassin are appearing there since the list move.
thanks !
--ed
Hi Dallas,
after more than a month I'm back on-line... so I returned to my usual
SURBL reporting for Bill's list using
http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi
However, for some reason, I can't post any domain name ending in '.ar'
(Argentina, my country) in the bl check form.
I tried curso
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, 7:08:47 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>> Are the blog spammers scammers and criminals like professional
>> mail spammers? Do they advertise legitimate sites, or the usual
>> pill and mortgage sites in Korea, China and Brazil?
> Yes they are.
Are they advertising l
>-Original Message-
>From: Rob McEwen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:54 AM
>To: 'SURBL Discussion list'; 'Jeff Chan'; 'SATalk'
>Subject: RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Applying SURBL against blog comment
>spammers
>
>
>>SO I say, go ahead and add them.
>
>Chris..
At 01:07 PM 9/2/2004 +0300, Alexander Piavka wrote:
Now a couple of days ago on one hosts
the network tests stoped working, while nothing was changed
and both hosts are open in the firewall.
Any ideas what could be the reason?
First check for gross errors:
spamassassin --lint
Then try reso
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, 6:53:41 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
>>SO I say, go ahead and add them.
> Chris... where have you been? We have had extensive discussions recently
> where we all concluded that we have to make getting the FPs down a priority
> and the only way to do this is to (gulp), allo
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, 6:36:29 AM, Chris Santerre wrote:
>>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>We could perhaps set up a separate SURBL for blog spammers.
>>It would be a slight shift in focus since the other SURBLs are
>>all for email spam. Can you give an idea of how many recor
>-Original Message-
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:24 AM
>To: SATalk
>Cc: SURBL Discuss
>Subject: Re: Applying SURBL against blog comment spammers
>
>
>On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, 11:25:40 PM, Matthew Hunter wrote:
>> I just whipped u
Hi ,i have exactly the same spamassasin-2.64 installation and
configuration on two hosts with same hardware and exaclty the same
Mandrake 8.2 linux installation. Now a couple of days ago on one hosts
the network tests stoped working, while nothing was changed
and both hosts are open in the firewa
Hi all
I search the signification of the Baysian tokens eg. U* , N:HContent-type:
, 8: etc etc
Where can i find this information ?
Thanks for your help
Which blogger are you using?
I moved my own blog over to Wordpress a couple of months ago and I haven't
had any issues with comment spammers since.
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd
Hosting, co-location & domains
http://www.blacknight.ie/
Tel. +353 59 9137101
--
Email scanne
On Thursday, September 2, 2004, 12:50:29 AM, Matthew Hunter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:23:48AM -0700, Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to what looks like 3-4 entities and about 20 domains. I just
> started compiling it today, though. There are probably more
> buried in the logs t
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:23:48AM -0700, Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We could perhaps set up a separate SURBL for blog spammers.
> It would be a slight shift in focus since the other SURBLs are
> all for email spam. Can you give an idea of how many records
> you have?
Since my weblog
On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, 11:25:40 PM, Matthew Hunter wrote:
> I just whipped up some code to reject trackback/comment spam
> using a SURBL as a data source. Unfortunately, the people
> spamming my weblogs aren't in multi.surbl.org, so I will have to
> maintain my own local blacklist serv
Subject: Sorry to ask but how to I unsubscribe
> I don't see anything obvious.
Look in the mail message headers
Loren
I don't see anything obvious.
Shawn
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:30:08PM -0500, Bob Apthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [cc'd to SATalk]
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:45:18 -0700 Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, 6:57:12 PM, Bob Apthorpe wrote:
> > > You've sparked a thought. I'd rather not (badly)
Hi,
[cc'd to SATalk]
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 20:45:18 -0700 Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2004, 6:57:12 PM, Bob Apthorpe wrote:
> > You've sparked a thought. I'd rather not (badly) rewrite and maintain
> > existing, tested code so maybe the right thing to do is take
On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 15:54, Dave Weiner wrote:
> My boss wants me to setup at least two servers to compare the detection rates
> of SA + ClamAV with other products, so he wants me to setup some sort of
> gateway that will listen on port 25 as our primary MX, accept the message,
> then send the
Title: RE: 1-Megabyte Spam
I doubt it will become cost effective for main stream spammers to send such large messages in the near future. Spammers return on a million messages is usually fairly infinitesimal and the cost of sending a million 1MB messages using hijacked home machines or unmoni
43 matches
Mail list logo
