Hello Toni Mueller,
Am 2010-12-08 19:06:43, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> I tried the high MX for some time, but in my experience, spammers
> usually only hit the first two MXes.
I do not have this experience.
> So if you were using the high and
> low MX, you should imho have no reasonable b
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Matt wrote:
Anyone using the Fake MX trick?
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/wiki/Fake_MX
Is it safe to use a fake high and low mx?
At my last company, I found it very useful to setup the high MX's to
use a greylist. I would not use a low MX for this.
It was very ef
On 12/08/2010 03:34 PM, Chris Owen wrote:
he other thing we see that always amazes me is that if we have MXs that are all
the same weight, the ones that have the lowest reverse DNS host name get hit
higher.
I really have no idea how much less why this happens. It is sort of
frustrating tho
> From: Bob Proulx [mailto:b...@proulx.com]
> Subject: Re: Fake MX
>
> > > [...] but that is distinct from being a tarpit, which is what
> > > I'm trying to clarify.
> >
> > A discussion around the definition of tarpit, and why tarbaby might be a
>
> > [...] but that is distinct from being a tarpit, which is what
> > I'm trying to clarify.
>
> A discussion around the definition of tarpit, and why tarbaby might be a
> suboptimal, though catchy, name?
For the record a "tarbaby":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby
is something differen
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 09:13 -0800, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
> [...] but that is distinct from being a tarpit, which is what
> I'm trying to clarify.
>
> Karsten, is this OT enough to be squelched?
A discussion around the definition of tarpit, and why tarbaby
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
On 12/8/2010 6:26 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Hitting the tarbaby server by itself doesn't get you listed. I have
> ways of detecting spambots only.
"tarbaby" has a very different connotation: that it is a TCP o
On 12/8/2010 6:26 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
Hitting the tarbaby server by itself doesn't get you listed. I have
ways of detecting spambots only.
"tarbaby" has a very different connotation: that it is a TCP or SMTP
tarpit. This will make people nervous to
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 15:52 -0800, Marc Perkel wrote:
> For those who want to try the Fake MX trick you can set your highest MX
> to tarbaby.junkemailfilter.com. I'm harvesting spambot data for my black
> list. It's a free way to get rid of some spam and punish the spammers.
Marc, we've gone thr
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:52:37 -0800
Marc Perkel wrote:
> For those who want to try the Fake MX trick you can set your highest
> MX to tarbaby.junkemailfilter.com.
Sure. I'll publish an MX record potentially sending my domain's mail
to a machine I don't control... not.
-- David.
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Marc Perkel wrote:
Hitting the tarbaby server by itself doesn't get you listed. I have ways
of detecting spambots only.
"tarbaby" has a very different connotation: that it is a TCP or SMTP
tarpit. This will make people nervous to use it.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
Hitting the tarbaby server by itself doesn't get you listed. I have ways
of detecting spambots only.
On 12/8/2010 4:02 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
On 12/8/10 6:52 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
punish the spammers.
and, punish any senders who follow the RFC's.
--
Marc Perkel - Sales/Support
su
On 12/8/10 6:52 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
punish the spammers.
and, punish any senders who follow the RFC's.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
ISN: 1259*1300
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Certified SNORT Integrator
* 2008-9 Hot Company Award Winner, W
On 12/8/2010 12:34 PM, Chris Owen wrote:
On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Virus bots tend to hit all MX records, perhaps randomly. I get millions of hits
every day on the highest numbered MX when there are at least 2 and sometimes as
many as 7 lower numbered MX records.
We to
On 12/09/2010 09:34 AM, Chris Owen wrote:
> The other thing we see that always amazes me is that if we have MXs that are
> all the same weight, the ones that have the lowest reverse DNS host name get
> hit higher.
>
We merge identical-weighted MX records into one and round-robin the
mailserver DN
On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Virus bots tend to hit all MX records, perhaps randomly. I get millions of
> hits every day on the highest numbered MX when there are at least 2 and
> sometimes as many as 7 lower numbered MX records.
We too very often see spammers hit the highes
On 12/8/2010 11:46 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Toni Mueller wrote:
I tried the high MX for some time, but in my experience, spammers
usually only hit the first two MXes.
I wonder what Marc Perkel's experience in this regard is...
Virus bots tend to hit all MX records, perh
On 12/8/10 2:46 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Toni Mueller wrote:
I tried the high MX for some time, but in my experience, spammers
usually only hit the first two MXes.
I wonder what Marc Perkel's experience in this regard is...
You just had to stir up the ants.
--
Michael Sc
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Toni Mueller wrote:
I tried the high MX for some time, but in my experience, spammers
usually only hit the first two MXes.
I wonder what Marc Perkel's experience in this regard is...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.
I use to do this and it was fine.
No problem in the low mx and just added points to the high mx in SA.
It did help a little.
A while ago I had to disable it because some major ISPs in Brazil start
to block me out because of this setup.
-rsd
On 12/08/2010 03:32 PM, Matt wrote:
Anyone using
Hi Matt!
On 08.12.2010 18:33, Matt wrote:
> Anyone using the Fake MX trick?
>
> http://www.webhostingtalk.com/wiki/Fake_MX
>
> Is it safe to use a fake high and low mx?
The term Fake MX doesn't seem to be used consistently. We are using a
Fake MX, which responds a temporary error to every e-mai
On Wed, 08.12.2010 at 11:33:11 -0600, Matt wrote:
> Anyone using the Fake MX trick?
> http://www.webhostingtalk.com/wiki/Fake_MX
> Is it safe to use a fake high and low mx?
I tried the high MX for some time, but in my experience, spammers
usually only hit the first two MXes. So if you were usin
On 12/8/2010 12:33 PM, Matt wrote:
> Anyone using the Fake MX trick?
>
> http://www.webhostingtalk.com/wiki/Fake_MX
>
> Is it safe to use a fake high and low mx?
Putting a non-responsive MX at the high end is fine. I've been doing
that for years ever since I disabled my backup MX and just left th
Robert - elists wrote:
mouss is french, you must know ;-)
French mouse?
"mousse" means foam. Franciscaner weiss?
;-)
http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/animatedfilms/ratatouille/
No offense intended of course... it really was a cute movie...
I loved it.
Time for vacations!
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Marc Perkel wrote:
Marc Ferguson wrote:
Hi,
I'm a linux noob and a spam assassin noob so please reply in simplified
language. Thanks.
I saw on the wiki a trick to use fake mx records in order to weed out spam
(http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks). I'm usin
>
> mouss is french, you must know ;-)
>
French mouse?
;-)
http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/animatedfilms/ratatouille/
No offense intended of course... it really was a cute movie...
Time for vacations!
- rh
Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Dienstag, 24. Juni 2008 Benny Pedersen wrote:
14400 is 4 hours (4*3660) which is a bit low for an MX 86400
(24 hours) is probably better.
nice calc for 4 hours :-)
mouss is french, you must know ;-)
yep. I have problems with anything but the
On Dienstag, 24. Juni 2008 Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > 14400 is 4 hours (4*3660) which is a bit low for an MX 86400
> > (24 hours) is probably better.
>
> nice calc for 4 hours :-)
mouss is french, you must know ;-)
mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc- http://it-management.at
On Mon, June 23, 2008 21:27, mouss wrote:
> 14400 is 4 hours (4*3660) which is a bit low for an MX 86400 (24
> hours) is probably better.
nice calc for 4 hours :-)
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
Marc Ferguson wrote:
Hi,
I'm a linux noob and a spam assassin noob so please reply in simplified
language. Thanks.
I saw on the wiki a trick to use fake mx records in order to weed out spam (
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks). I'm using Evolution at
home and on my laptop and I
Marc Perkel wrote:
Marc Ferguson wrote:
Hi,
I'm a linux noob and a spam assassin noob so please reply in
simplified language. Thanks.
I saw on the wiki a trick to use fake mx records in order to weed out
spam (http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks). I'm using
Evolution at home an
Marc Ferguson wrote:
Hi,
I'm a linux noob and a spam assassin noob so please reply in
simplified language. Thanks.
I saw on the wiki a trick to use fake mx records in order to weed out
spam (http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks). I'm using
Evolution at home and on my laptop and
Marc Ferguson escribió:
Hi,
I'm a linux noob and a spam assassin noob so please reply in
simplified language. Thanks.
I saw on the wiki a trick to use fake mx records in order to weed out
spam (http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks). I'm using
Evolution at home and on my laptop
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, McDonald, Dan wrote:
But I'm not convinced that twiddling with fake MX records will reduce
your spam level any.
Cue Mr. Perkel... :)
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECT
Marc Ferguson schrieb am 20.06.2008 16:38:
I saw on the wiki a trick to use fake mx records in order to weed out
spam (http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks). I'm using
Evolution at home and on my laptop and I have the spamassassin plugin so
I'm constantly clicking the "junk" icon.
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 10:38 -0400, Marc Ferguson wrote:
> Hi,
> I saw on the wiki a trick to use fake mx records in order to weed out
> spam (http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks). I'm using
> Evolution at home and on my laptop and I have the spamassassin plugin
> so I'm constantly cli
On 20.06.08 10:38, Marc Ferguson wrote:
> I'm a linux noob and a spam assassin noob so please reply in simplified
> language. Thanks.
>
> I saw on the wiki a trick to use fake mx records in order to weed out spam (
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks). I'm using Evolution at
> home
On 8/15/07, Wil Hatfield - HyperConX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This is the biggest problem with "fake" MX records for me. If your
> > primary MX is not available, you will simply lose mail from some
> > senders. It's entirely their "fault" for violating the RFCs but the
> > mail is still
>
> This is the biggest problem with "fake" MX records for me. If your
> primary MX is not available, you will simply lose mail from some
> senders. It's entirely their "fault" for violating the RFCs but the
> mail is still lost, and it isn't easy to explain whats going on to
> your users/custom
On 8/15/2007 11:46 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 8/14/2007 5:52 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:13:16 -0700:
I'm using it on 1600 domains and it definitely works. I get not bot
spam at all.
I doubt that th
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Richard Frovarp wrote:
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Yes, and some systems might not ever send you email (they violate
RFC's)
We've had one issue with this. ... There was on weird mailer that
is being used that doesn't try other MXs. We w
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Richard Frovarp wrote:
> Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
> > Yes, and some systems might not ever send you email (they violate
> > RFC's)
>
> We've had one issue with this. ... There was on weird mailer that
> is being used that doesn't try other MXs. We were able to get past
>
On 15 Aug 2007, Marc Perkel uttered the following:
> I'm doing it and I'm not losing email from any senders.
How can you possibly tell? You mean `none of the senders who I may have
lost email from have noticed it and complained, or at least none have
been able to get through to me to complain'.
T
Michael Scheidell wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:07 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: fake MX records
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricksthis page mentions
setting up fake MXes
Is this met
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On 8/14/07, Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:07 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: fake MX records
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 8/14/2007 5:52 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:13:16 -0700:
I'm using it on 1600 domains and it definitely works. I get not bot
spam at all.
I doubt that this is because you have a fake low MX.
Kai
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
On 8/14/07, Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:07 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: fake MX records
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricksthis
On 8/14/07, Michael Scheidell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:07 AM
> > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> > Subject: fake MX records
> >
> >
> > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTric
Marc Perkel wrote on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:52:22 -0700:
> So what do you attribute my success in getting rid of all bot spam to?
As I don't know your setup this would be pure speculation. However, as *I*
am not using fake MXs, but several other MTA techniques and see not much
Botnet spam either I
On 8/14/2007 5:52 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:13:16 -0700:
I'm using it on 1600 domains and it definitely works. I get not bot spam
at all.
I doubt that this is because you have a fake low MX.
Kai
So what do you attribut
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:13:16 -0700:
I'm using it on 1600 domains and it definitely works. I get not bot spam
at all.
I doubt that this is because you have a fake low MX.
Kai
So what do you attribute my success in getting rid of all bot spa
Marc Perkel wrote on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:13:16 -0700:
> I'm using it on 1600 domains and it definitely works. I get not bot spam
> at all.
I doubt that this is because you have a fake low MX.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive
Kshatriya wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, ram wrote:
The page says the primary MX should not be accepting connections at all.
Has anyone else tried this , will this cause delay in my mail
It almost doesn't work anymore. Better try adaptive greylisting, with
some whitelists so you don't notice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kshatriya schrieb:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, ram wrote:
>
>> The page says the primary MX should not be accepting connections at all.
>> Has anyone else tried this , will this cause delay in my mail
>
> It almost doesn't work anymore. Better try adaptiv
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, ram wrote:
The page says the primary MX should not be accepting connections at all.
Has anyone else tried this , will this cause delay in my mail
It almost doesn't work anymore. Better try adaptive greylisting, with some
whitelists so you don't notice too much of delays.
> -Original Message-
> From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:07 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: fake MX records
>
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricksthis page mentions
> setting up fake MXes
>
> Is this method rel
At 20:17 22-07-2007, Bubuk Gabrok wrote:
On http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks (Fake MX Record) ,
where do I insert these values:
Set your DNS records accordingly.
The statement that "No good email is lost" is subjective.
Regards,
-sm
On 7/23/07, Evan Platt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 08:17 PM 7/22/2007, Bubuk Gabrok wrote:
>On http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks (Fake MX Record) ,
>where do I insert these values:
>fake0.domain.com 10
>realmx.domain.com 20
>fake1.domain.com 30
>
>TIA.
In your Zonefile for y
At 08:17 PM 7/22/2007, Bubuk Gabrok wrote:
On http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks (Fake MX Record) ,
where do I insert these values:
fake0.domain.com 10
realmx.domain.com 20
fake1.domain.com 30
TIA.
In your Zonefile for your DNS.
Evan
59 matches
Mail list logo
