>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm wondering if some know is this is possible to stop using SA. Look.
>>
>> [r...@cyrus postfix]# telnet localhost 25
>> Trying 127.0.0.1...
>> Connected to cyrus.sat.gob.mx (127.0.0.1).
>> Escape character is '^]'.
>> 220 mx2.sat.gob.m
Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote:
Hi all,
Again me, Well, in the security scope i use a principle that states that you
souldnt use a lower layer solution to fix a higher one. So SPAM is a Layer 7
problem that is used to fixed with a Layer 3 solution (RBL).
I'd like a brainstorm to convinc
Hi all,
Has anyone else seen an increase in image spam lately?
http://pastebin.com/m47617898
The LOC_IMGSPAM is a local rule I created that simply checks for
/inline/ content disposition. I've changed the @ to # to pass the
pastebin filters.
Any ideas what I could be missing on catching this on
Adam Katz wrote:
There are several academic viruses for non-Windows systems out there,
plus maybe a few actual ones. The rest are all just exploits and
root-kits that typically don't fall into the "virus" category.
Non-Windows-based worms are almost exclusive to Apache (and within
that category,
FYI:
On 11/13/2009 12:22 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
However, the docs don't say whether its checking the envelope sender
and/or the From: header.
man 5 access:
DESCRIPTION
This document describes access control on remote SMTP client
information: host names, network addresses
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 13:58 -0600, David B Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, John Hardin wrote:
>
> > Is there a way to configure sendmail to also validate both the envelope
> > sender and message From: header against the local passwd file?
>
> Checking the envelope sender (for local domain addr
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, David B Funk wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, John Hardin wrote:
Is there a way to configure sendmail to also validate both the envelope
sender and message From: header against the local passwd file?
Checking the envelope sender (for local domain addresses) against the
local
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, John Hardin wrote:
> Is there a way to configure sendmail to also validate both the envelope
> sender and message From: header against the local passwd file?
Checking the envelope sender (for local domain addresses) against the
local passwd file is straightforward. Checking t
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 17:26 +, haman...@t-online.de wrote:
I've only used Red Hat flavours of Linux since RH 6.2 so I can't speak
for other distros, but here's my experience.
> Where IPs looked like machines in a computer center, I occasionally
> had a closer look and found newly created site
LuKreme wrote:
If user foo exists but user fbaz does not, you should expect that an
MTA will reject fbaz but deliver that same message to foo. I'm
talking about a way to cause SpamAssassin (or something else,
whatever) to note the fact that a *different* recipient, fbaz, doesn't
exist, and to re
On fre 13 nov 2009 18:26:07 CET, wrote
One admin admitted that they were hacked through login guest / pass guest
and this is a real hack :)
--
xpoint
>>
>> Caveats such as week passwords, open ports and advertising insecure services
>> are the domain of poor administration and understanding - they are not
>> Operating
>> System dependent.
>>
>> Exempting organised spam gangs and their infrastructure, it's probably fair
>> to say that
>> most
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Terry Carmen wrote:
Adam Katz wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Do we know the OIP is using sendmail?
Yes. Here's a quote:
> > I'm using SpamAssassin 3.2.3, milter-limit and sendmail
> Postfix checks local recipients
Folks, we're losing sight of the OP's request.
On 13-Nov-2009, at 10:00, Terry Carmen wrote:
>> To: Foo Bar
>> Cc: Foo Baz
>>
>> If user foo exists but user fbaz does not, you should expect that an
>> MTA will reject fbaz but deliver that same message to foo. I'm
>> talking about a way to cause SpamAssassin (or something else,
>> whatever
Adam Katz wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Do we know the OIP is using sendmail?
Yes. Here's a quote:
I'm using SpamAssassin 3.2.3, milter-limit and sendmail
Postfix checks local recipients against /etc/passwd and /etc/aliases by
default. It can also be configured to app
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 11:40 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> Am I the only one who thints that issues clearly off-topic should be sent
> off-list?
>
Your response was to correct an onlist reply to an onlist remark. Is
there some reason why you would feel it appropriate to off-list that?
AF
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 12.11.09 13:55, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
I don't know about Linux viruses; BUT, I do remember less than ten years
ago when it was virtually impossible to build a Linux box with a hot
onl
> > Since I didn't clearly write the part you are reacting on, it would be nice
> > from you to remove my name from the begin, as you removed the rest of
> > e-mail.
On 13.11.09 10:24, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Matus has emailed me *off list* and asked me to point out that there is an
> err
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 10:58 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > On 12.11.09 13:55, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
> > > > I don't know about Linux viruses; BUT, I do remember less than ten
> > > > years
> > > > ago when it was
Hi!
I reject the notion that spam is a L7 problem.
It is more of a L8 problem... money.
Warren
Or L9, users. In the end :)
Bye,
Raymond.
Hi!
Again me, Well, in the security scope i use a principle that states that you
souldnt use a lower layer solution to fix a higher one. So SPAM is a Layer 7
problem that is used to fixed with a Layer 3 solution (RBL).
I'd like a brainstorm to convince that a RBL solution is not the best stop
On fre 13 nov 2009 04:41:36 CET, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote
I'd like a brainstorm to convince that a RBL solution is not the best stoping
SPAM, and we should look for L7 solution such as Bayes.
and ip's is not part of bayes db ...
--
xpoint
On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:12 +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 12.11.09 13:55, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
> > I don't know about Linux viruses; BUT, I do remember less than ten years
> > ago when it was virtually impossible to build a Linux box with a hot
> > online connection, because you w
On 12.11.09 13:55, Chris Hoogendyk wrote:
> I don't know about Linux viruses; BUT, I do remember less than ten years
> ago when it was virtually impossible to build a Linux box with a hot
> online connection, because you would get hacked before you could even
> download the patches. I had a f
24 matches
Mail list logo
