-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tony Finch writes:
> On Mon, 2 May 2005, Justin Mason wrote:
> >
> > It might be worthwhile maintaining some kind of spammer tactics
> > knowledge base, on the wiki maybe?
>
> There's http://www.jgc.org/tsc/ but it's more focussed on textual
> obfusc
On Mon, 2 May 2005, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> It might be worthwhile maintaining some kind of spammer tactics
> knowledge base, on the wiki maybe?
There's http://www.jgc.org/tsc/ but it's more focussed on textual
obfuscation than low-level tactics.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http:/
Jeff Chan wrote:
On Monday, May 2, 2005, 4:54:10 AM, Niek Niek wrote:
On 5/2/2005 1:48 PM +0200, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
spam going to that server! I wonder if the spammers have cached the
old MX entry
Jup.
Niek
And spam through our real backup MX did die down when I added a
fake second bac
On Monday, May 2, 2005, 4:54:10 AM, Niek Niek wrote:
> On 5/2/2005 1:48 PM +0200, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
>> spam going to that server! I wonder if the spammers have cached the
>> old MX entry
> Jup.
> Niek
And spam through our real backup MX did die down when I added a
fake second backup MX
--On Monday, May 02, 2005 7:48 AM -0400 Kevin Peuhkurinen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The interesting thing is that now, about a month later, I'm still seeing
spam going to that server! I wonder if the spammers have cached the old
MX entry or if they have some database of mail server addresses a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Niek writes:
> On 5/2/2005 1:48 PM +0200, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
> > spam going to that server! I wonder if the spammers have cached the
> > old MX entry
>
> Jup.
BTW I've seen a few discussions recently where people rediscover
(sorry Kevin) th
>...
>
>About a month ago, there was a discussion on the list about how spammers
>specifically target secondary MX records. After reading I verified
>that indeed 99% of the mail that flowed through my store-and-forward
>secondary mail server was spam. So, I removed the second MX record
>fro
On 5/2/2005 1:48 PM +0200, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
spam going to that server! I wonder if the spammers have cached the
old MX entry
Jup.
Niek
About a month ago, there was a discussion on the list about how spammers
specifically target secondary MX records. After reading I verified
that indeed 99% of the mail that flowed through my store-and-forward
secondary mail server was spam. So, I removed the second MX record
from my DNS zon
