This case gives CAN-SPAM some teeth to go after both affiliates
and the hosts they advertise. It's also a precedent worth
mentioning to those who say they have no responsibility for their
affiliates.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/11/globalnet.htm
For Release: November 17, 2005
Spammers Barred f
Jonathan Nichols wrote:
You know, these days, the *only* spam that slips through is "product
test panel" and similar crap. The URL is always similar to this one:
http://lngd-pp.com/link/91268749298550548/
Usually 4 letters, dash, 1 or 2 letters, and what looks like a
'hashbuster'
Anyone
From: "Kelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Question: Is there any knowledge as to how spammers deal with different
kinds of failure? Does it matter if I reject the RCPT command or the
MAIL command, or even drop the connection right away
I'm sure it depends on the spammer, but a
From: "Elton Ramos Carvalho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
Does that ISP have ANY redeeming virtues? I'm about to blacklist it
completely due to its repeated "AntiSpam UOL" messages clogging my
machine.
{^_^}
It is the uol.com.br (Universo Online) anti spam system.
This antispam have a o
You know, these days, the *only* spam that slips through is "product
test panel" and similar crap. The URL is always similar to this one:
http://lngd-pp.com/link/91268749298550548/
Usually 4 letters, dash, 1 or 2 letters, and what looks like a 'hashbuster'
Anyone found a way to effectively
Hello Steven,
Wednesday, November 16, 2005, 1:47:24 PM, you wrote:
SL> I guess if this is the case I need to lower
SL> the score for that rule as my kill value is a 3.5, ...
SpamAssassin scores are optimized for a "this is spam" threshold of 5.
Anyone who changes their threshold significantly a
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 11:42:44AM -0800, John Woolsey wrote:
> It would be an interesting addition to a honeypot. Make the mail server
> just hang up and not respond to tie up connections on the spammer.
There's a cool piece of software holding tcp connections
alive as long as possible called "la
Roger Taranto a écrit :
If it didn't tie up sockets on our machines, it seems like instead of
rejecting the mail, we should just hold on to the mail connection for as
long as possible. It wouldn't take too long to tie up all of their
outbound connections and back up their mail server. Unfortu
Roger Taranto wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 10:17, Matt Kettler wrote:
>
>>Magnus Holmgren wrote:
>>
>>>Spammers need to clean their address lists once in a while, lest they
>>>end up with a very low proportion of valid addresses, right?
>>
>>No, they don't have to clean it.
>
>
> If it didn't
It would be an interesting addition to a honeypot. Make the mail server just
hang up and not respond to tie up connections on the spammer.
- bfn - JAW
-- Original Message --
From: Roger Taranto <[EMAIL PROT
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 10:17, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > Spammers need to clean their address lists once in a while, lest they
> > end up with a very low proportion of valid addresses, right?
>
> No, they don't have to clean it.
If it didn't tie up sockets on our machines, it
Hey all,
Sorry if this has been hashed over before. I’ve
googled until my fingers bled, and I’ve searched through the archives and
FAQs already.
I have been running an older version of SA with Chris Lewis’
Exchange Sink for quite a while now with no problems. In fact it works
extrem
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
Question: Is there any knowledge as to how spammers deal with different
kinds of failure? Does it matter if I reject the RCPT command or the
MAIL command, or even drop the connection right away
I'm sure it depends on the spammer, but a while back I started looking
at the
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Spammers need to clean their address lists once in a while, lest they
> end up with a very low proportion of valid addresses, right?
No, they don't have to clean it.
Let's face it.. spammers are currently making extensive use of dictionary
attacks to add more addresses to
Spammers need to clean their address lists once in a while, lest they
end up with a very low proportion of valid addresses, right?
Question: Is there any knowledge as to how spammers deal with different
kinds of failure? Does it matter if I reject the RCPT command or the
MAIL command, or even drop
On Thursday 17 November 2005 10:07, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Thursday 17 November 2005 00:14, jdow wrote:
>>
>>These bozoids are executing a minor DOS attack of these confirm
>> emails. I sent 6. I have received at LEAST 36 challenge/response
>> messages from the [EMAIL PROTECTED](((@)(*#$)(& . They
jdow wrote:
Does that ISP have ANY redeeming virtues? I'm about to blacklist it
completely due to its repeated "AntiSpam UOL" messages clogging my
machine.
{^_^}
It is the uol.com.br (Universo Online) anti spam system.
This antispam have a option that you need request for authorization to
s
be4 bad guys using it:
Free .be domain name registrations
http://www.e3internet.com/domain-registration/conditions/register-be/
Lots of "real" spam doesn't score this high. 22.9 points
on SA 3.0.4. Someone's zombie ratware misfired. Is this some
record for points per line - infinite. The only change was to
substitute {VICTIM} for the actual account.
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pts rule name
On Thursday 17 November 2005 00:14, jdow wrote:
>From: "Justin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Doc Schneider writes:
>>> I'm having one of those days.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Original Message
>>> Subject: Re: uol.com.br
>>>
>>> jdow w
At 06:40 AM 11/17/2005, Joey wrote:
OK I have converted over to the latest version and have mosting things
running well.
I wanted to confirm how to properly use SURBL's
in the previous version I used a .cf file, however the docs say 3.0 and
higher come with SURBL support.
is the URIDNSBL the same
I've tried Vispan, but unfortunately I still at this point
Number::Format: {thousands_sep} and {decimal_point} may not be equal
at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/Vispan/Print.pm line 477
I'm searhing the net for weeks, but it looks like there is some
compatibility issue between Vispan and some p
Pál László wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for some stat maker which can analyse my mail log. I'm using
SA 3.1.0 with Mailscanner and Postfix and I've tried spamstats-0.6b on my
mail.log but it does not produce any output.
Could you please recommend a working solution?
Thank you
Laszlo
See (all on on
Hi,
I'm looking for some stat maker which can analyse my mail log. I'm using
SA 3.1.0 with Mailscanner and Postfix and I've tried spamstats-0.6b on my
mail.log but it does not produce any output.
Could you please recommend a working solution?
Thank you
Laszlo
--
"Bár megírták a Sorsod, de od
OK I have converted over to the latest version and have mosting things
running well.
I wanted to confirm how to properly use SURBL's
in the previous version I used a .cf file, however the docs say 3.0 and
higher come with SURBL support.
is the URIDNSBL the same thing which you activate from init.p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
jdow wrote:
>
> procmail:
> :0:
> # was from one specific person
> * ^From: AntiSpam UOL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> /dev/null
>
> ...
> # I just got pissed.
> :0:
> * ^From: .*uol.com.br
> $HOME/mail/uol_crap
Or (assuming you are your own MX) /etc/mail/a
> -Original Message-
> From: Kelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 16 November 2005 22:42
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RATWARE_ZERO_TZ=4.1
>
> Steven Lamb wrote:
> > I guess if this is the case I
> > need to lower the score for that rule as my kill value is a 3.5
27 matches
Mail list logo
