Hi,
>> > I seem to remember a botnet plugin from about 2010, but didn't think
>> > it was maintained or worked properly anymore?
>>
>> That very same. Seems to work fine, so I have not disabled it.
>
> It works for me too, but I don't have any IPv6.
>
> IIRC at one time it FP'ed on IPv6, and I'm n
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:16:46 -0500
Alex wrote:
> I can't even imagine almost doubling the bayes score from the default,
> basically making it a poison pill, when the default score is generated
> as part of the rule development process.
AFAIK the BAYES_* scores are just made-up - although it is t
RW kirjoitti 18.2.2016 14:40:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:35:18 +0200
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> I seem to remember a botnet plugin from about 2010, but didn't think
> it was maintained or worked properly anymore?
>
That very same. Seems to work fine, so I have not disabled it.
It works for me to
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 09:35:18 +0200
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> > I seem to remember a botnet plugin from about 2010, but didn't think
> > it was maintained or worked properly anymore?
> >
>
> That very same. Seems to work fine, so I have not disabled it.
It works for me too, but I don't have a
Am 18.02.2016 um 12:29 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
Am 17.02.2016 um 17:49 schrieb Alex:
http://pastebin.com/zKWUUQ0Q
Obviously they're coming in advance of being on an RBL or DNSBL.
I was thinking to correlate the body text somehow with something that
checks to see if it actually passed
Am 17.02.2016 um 17:49 schrieb Alex:
http://pastebin.com/zKWUUQ0Q
Obviously they're coming in advance of being on an RBL or DNSBL.
I was thinking to correlate the body text somehow with something that
checks to see if it actually passed through Google (SPF, etc?), but
that won't work for messag
Alex kirjoitti 18.2.2016 2:16:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
pts rule name description
--
--
1.5 BOTNET Relay might be a spambot or virusbot
What rule is th
Am 18.02.2016 um 01:16 schrieb Alex:
Reindl Harald wrote:
7.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 99 to 100%
I can't even imagine almost doubling the bayes score from the default,
basically making it a poison pill, when the default score is generated
as part of the rule d
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> Alex kirjoitti 17.2.2016 18:49:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I recall some rules that were written years ago to address these, but
>> it appears they're back. We've been hit with a few, including users
>> actually following the link. I was hop
Alex kirjoitti 17.2.2016 18:49:
Hi all,
I recall some rules that were written years ago to address these, but
it appears they're back. We've been hit with a few, including users
actually following the link. I was hoping someone had some
recommendations on how to stop them.
http://pastebin.com/z
Am 17.02.2016 um 17:49 schrieb Alex:
Hi all,
I recall some rules that were written years ago to address these, but
it appears they're back. We've been hit with a few, including users
actually following the link. I was hoping someone had some
recommendations on how to stop them.
http://pastebi
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Alex wrote:
Hi all,
I recall some rules that were written years ago to address these, but
it appears they're back. We've been hit with a few, including users
actually following the link. I was hoping someone had some
recommendations on how to stop them.
http://pastebin.com
Oh, please note I just noticed bayes wasn't consulted for this. It's a
new system and was having some database problems, but bayes hasn't
always been effective on these anyway.
Thanks,
Alex
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Alex wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recall some rules that were written years ag
Hi all,
I recall some rules that were written years ago to address these, but
it appears they're back. We've been hit with a few, including users
actually following the link. I was hoping someone had some
recommendations on how to stop them.
http://pastebin.com/zKWUUQ0Q
Obviously they're coming
14 matches
Mail list logo
