On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
> Royce Williams wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Michael Scheidell
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/21/10 8:50 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to try collecting reputat
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Michael Scheidell
wrote:
> On 10/21/10 8:50 PM, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to try collecting reputation data for every IP address from
>> everyone willing to submit it.
> re-inventing the wheel.
If what's being suggested is a non-commercial alte
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Royce Williams wrote:
>>
>> From the documentation, msa_networks designates those servers that
>> accept only authenticated messages, regardless of type. I'm the new
>> guy on the list, and have some catchin
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Henrik K wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 07:02:55AM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Royce Williams
>> wrote:
>> > * Create a mua_networks option. This would only need to interact with
>> &
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Royce Williams
wrote:
> * Create a mua_networks option. This would only need to interact with
> msa_networks, and would allow msa_networks systems to become
> self-aware. If a server is in msa_networks, and it sees someone
> connecting from a mua_netw
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Henrik K wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:43:24PM -0400, Kris Deugau wrote:
>>
I would think that in this case the dynamic address blocks would need to
be explicitly defined.
>>>
>>> That's why I starting this thread by saying that I went hunting for
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:46 AM, RW wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:09:35 +0300
> Henrik K wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 10:26:27PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
>> > >
>
>> > Maybe I'm having a vocabulary problem. My MSAs are really also
>>
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Henrik K wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:31:37PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Henrik K wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:52:00PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Answer
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Henrik K wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 04:52:00PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
>>
>> Answering myself, I have reworked our *_networks to reflect our
>> architecture based on my re-re-re-reading. Nobody has said that my
>> example
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
>> Royce Williams wrote:
>>>
>>> Some new information. In this 2008 thread:
>>>
>>> http://old.nabble.com/ALL_TRUSTED-and-DOS_OE_TO_MX-td1565
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
> Also, I think that an example snippet of.cf illustrating and briefly
> explaining each of the three _networks options might be in order, and
> might make the reading, re-reading, and re-reading of the docs a
> little less painf
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Royce Williams wrote:
>>
>> Some new information. In this 2008 thread:
>>
>> http://old.nabble.com/ALL_TRUSTED-and-DOS_OE_TO_MX-td15659736.html
>>
>> ... Daryl says:
>>
>> "So if (and I&#
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Royce Williams wrote:
>>
>> What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
>> MSAs to prevent unauthenticated dynamic-IP customers from triggering
>> dynamic tests, but still benefiting fro
Whoops - forgot to reply-all; resending with minor modifications.
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:10 AM, RW wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 06:18:25 -0800
> Royce Williams wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Henrik K wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 01:45:57PM -08
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Henrik K wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 01:45:57PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
>> What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
>> MSAs to prevent unauthenticated dynamic-IP customers from triggering
>> dynamic t
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
> What is the optimal configuration (local.cf or other) for an ISP's
> MSAs to prevent unauthenticated dynamic-IP customers from triggering
> dynamic tests, but still benefiting from general filtering?
Sorry, 'unauthenticat
ted only by what IP space they're coming from (not SMTP
AUTH, etc.)
I'm a long-time user, first-time poster; any help would be much
appreciated. I suspect that this is a well-solved issue, and I just
failed to come up with the right Google search for it.
Royce Williams
References:
ht
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:26 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 7-Mar-2010, at 10:08, LuKreme wrote:
> On 7-Mar-2010, at 08:31, Royce Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Semi-OT, but portsnap(8) makes fetching the ports indexes no longer
>>> necessary.
>
>> I'd never heard of
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:40 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> On 06-Mar-10 05:07, RW wrote:
>> portversion get its version information from the index file. You need
>> to do a "make fetchindex" in the ports directory (or "make index" if you
>> have a lot of time on your hands).
>
> Thanks for that, I am planni
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
> I was just wondering if anyone had mentioned this to ebay:
>
> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 09 16:42:23 GMT-0700
>
> will hit INVALID_DATE.
I've reported this multiple times, with no response.
Royce
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Warren Togami wrote:
>> You are misunderstanding the question. A single DNS query could
>> respond different numbers meaning they are hits on different lists.
>> Your lists that are subsets or supersets of other lists can easily use
>> this. Th
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Dan Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> I'll have to repeat, for the original poster this isn't a technology
>> vs technology argument. If it was, his coworkers would be listing
>> specific things Exchange does that FreeBSD/SA does not do.
>
> (Standing ovation on both emails)
22 matches
Mail list logo
