On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 08:44 -0500, Len Conrad wrote:
> "Swap: " is a blank line
Is swap enabled? (swapon -a)
It should have something on the line if nothing is used like:
Swap: 4000176k total,0k used, 4000176k free, 415556k cached
--
-Andy
But remember, the brick walls are there
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 23:51 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
> Haven't tried it myself but thought it may be of interest.
I wonder if it will include the barracuda devices that are set to
backscatter?
--
-Andy
Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment
of our intelligence by means of language.
- Lu
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 23:05 -0500, Curtis LaMasters wrote:
> @Andy - I was able to parse the script that you sent me to which had
> neither my problem nor my solution
Actually it DID contain your problem AND the solution:
# Version 1.31 NOTICE! Rules du jour is no longer being maintained. As
the
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 17:41 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> It may take a couple of years for a trap to activate, but eventually
> they will.
> I'm not an expert on this, so looking forward to better methods as
> well in this thread.
One thing I chuckle at is that spammers fat finger addresses l
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 12:59 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I've not run into a single instance where a legit server only tried
> the lowest MX. However, if I did there's a simple solution. If the
> fake lowest MX points to an IP on the same server as the working MX
> then you can use iptables to block
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 13:42 -0700, John Rudd wrote:
> b) Botnet gets 0% false positives at one of my services (not just
> "borked DNS == bad", as you're suggesting, but actual "everything that
> triggered botnet was actually spam"). And, yes, I actually check
I never suggested that. My thoughts
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 13:08 -0700, Bret Miller wrote:
> When I see on the list that many people run botnet with ZERO false
> positives, I have to ask myself, "how?
Anyone who claims that isn't really looking at the email they are
blocking, or don't believe borked DNS qualify as a FP.
> "we can't
On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 10:13 -0700, John D. Hardin wrote:
> That's kind of an extreme solution, and generally considered bad
> practice.
Yup - Be prepared for false positive hits if you use this method. I
rented a server that just happened to be on a netblock in Germany. US
websites/email thoug
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 21:35 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> Well, provided the objective is to avoid spam, it still might work
> well for that individual user.
Avoid? For whom? The objective should be to reduce or eliminate spam,
not pass filtering costs off on others. The "individual user" didn't
s
On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 19:37 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> I think CR can perhaps work quite well for an individual user with the
> technical insight & time to spare, but such individual users are only
> an small part of the picture.
No it doesn't. It foists the recipients burden on others, usually
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 12:58 +0200, Claude Frantz wrote:
> I was able to decode to plain text using the following commands:
>
> cat report.pdf | acroread -toPostScript -level2 -saveVM | ps2ascii
>
> Finally, very simple.
Don't forget to filter escapes, or you might get a .pdf that includes
some
11 matches
Mail list logo
