* Nigel Frankcom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/263
>
> A few options there... - though it could as easily be their building
> address...
I'd rather go for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/263_(number)
and then settle for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_prime
--
Ralf Hildebr
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:04:06 -0400, Bill Horne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 01:29:36PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>> * Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> > All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for
>> > people to deal with than alphabetic d
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 01:29:36PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for
> > people to deal with than alphabetic domains. For example, 263.com is
> > China's second-largest ISP. You can't just a
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish wrote:
> Yeah, Right... And Verisign never wildcarded domains either did they? Duh!
> right back at you.
>
> > RFC 1123 section 2.1:
> >
> > The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952
>
> Hostname vs DomainName
The domain name system itself do
From: "Hamish Marson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Duncan Hill wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote:
| 2250 0733.com
Here are my numbers from last week:
5006 0451.com 3845 53.com
Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal
server: 440733.com 340451.com 11
On Monday 07 August 2006 16:09, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote:
> > The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
> > be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
> > purely numberic domains are illegal.
>
> No! Wrong! Totally
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote:
> >
> > The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
> > be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
> > purely numberic domains are illegal.
>
> No! Wrong! Totally wrong
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote:
> The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
> be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
> purely numberic domains are illegal.
Should this be worth a point or so in the base ruleset?
--
John Hardin KA7OH
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote:
The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
purely numberic domains are illegal.
No! Wrong! Totally wrong! If they were il
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote:
>
> The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
> be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
> purely numberic domains are illegal.
No! Wrong! Totally wrong! If they were illegal they would never have been
all
On Monday 07 August 2006 15:20, Obantec Support wrote:
> What would 192.com or 118118.com do without these names?
Deal with the fact that the RFCs don't support such names, and petition for a
new RFC that accomodates their names?
Other businesses have had no issues adapting to the requirements
- Original Message -
From: "Hamish Marson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Duncan Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: 0451.com
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Duncan Hill wrote:
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Duncan Hill wrote:
> On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote:
>> | 2250 0733.com
>
>> Here are my numbers from last week:
>>
>> 5006 0451.com 3845 53.com
>
> Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal
> server: 440733.com
and not only them according to our daily sendmail logs:
# egrep '@[0-9]+\.com' YESTERDAY | sed -e 's/^.*@//' -e 's/>.*$//' |
sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head
2484 0733.com
2449 0451.com
100 072.com
66 1039.com
52 006.com
51 0668.com
40 004.com
37 163.com
18 126.com
15 mail.0451.com
Thank
y
From: Tony Finch on behalf of Tony Finch
Sent: Mon 07-Aug-06 13:26
To: Sietse van Zanen
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: 0451.com
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Sietse van Zanen wrote:
Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from these domains
I have a US customer with a numeric domain.
Not sure why they did that (boy, did it muck up Microsoft NT!)
Funny thing, when the spammers starting dictionary attacks, they do it
in alphabetic order, so numeric domains get hit with spam first also.
e no bombs at all
-Sietse
From: Tony Finch on behalf of Tony Finch
Sent: Mon 07-Aug-06 13:26
To: Sietse van Zanen
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: 0451.com
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Sietse van Zanen wrote:
> Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming
* Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for
> people to deal with than alphabetic domains. For example, 263.com is
> China's second-largest ISP. You can't just assume that an all-numeric
> domain is necessarily abusive, any more so than
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Sietse van Zanen wrote:
> Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from these domains would be like
> caring about the 'legitimate' claims of Bush saying he is a true
> christian...
All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for
people to deal with tha
g-06 11:32
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: 0451.com
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:21:41 +0100, Duncan Hill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote:
>> | 2250 0733.com
>
>> Here are my numbers from last week:
>>
>>5006 0451.com
&g
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:21:41 +0100, Duncan Hill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote:
>> | 2250 0733.com
>
>> Here are my numbers from last week:
>>
>>5006 0451.com
>>3845 53.com
>
>Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal server:
>
On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote:
> | 2250 0733.com
> Here are my numbers from last week:
>
>5006 0451.com
>3845 53.com
Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal server:
440733.com
340451.com
110668.com
4 023.com
2 08.com
2 020.com
| 2250 0733.com
| 1882 0451.com
| 89 072.com
| 62 006.com
| 58 1039.com
| 52 163.com
| 32 0668.com
| 31 004.com
| 19 126.com
| 13 mail.0451.com
|
| Panagiotis
Here are my numbers from last week:
5006 0451.com
3845 53.com
2253 0733.com
440 mail.0451.com
204 006.com
1
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Panagiotis Christias wrote:
> and not only them according to our daily sendmail logs:
>
> 2484 0733.com
> 2449 0451.com
...etc
I've also seen 0541.com in my logs.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZICQ#15735746http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174
and not only them according to our daily sendmail logs:
# egrep '@[0-9]+\.com' YESTERDAY | sed -e 's/^.*@//' -e 's/>.*$//' |
sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head
2484 0733.com
2449 0451.com
100 072.com
66 1039.com
52 006.com
51 0668.com
40 004.com
37 163.com
18 126.com
15 mail.0451.com
# egrep
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Wylie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:38 PM
Subject: 0451.com
> A question for those of you who have large databases of spam and ham to
> check, do genuine emails come from the domain 0451.com or whether it is
> genuinely just
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:38:56 +0100, Ben Wylie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A question for those of you who have large databases of spam and ham to
>check, do genuine emails come from the domain 0451.com or whether it is
>genuinely just spam?
>
>I get a lot of spam claiming to be from emails on th
27 matches
Mail list logo
