On Sunday, July 31, 2005, 11:37:44 PM, Loren Wilton wrote:
> src="http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/1856/6fbc90232ac38d/www.wellsfargo.com/i
> mg/eal_logo_gen.gif">
> Dear Wells Fargo customer,
> As you may already know, we at Wells Fargo guarantee your href="http://aurum.vup.hr/%7Ewolf/cgi-bin/wel
> > Any domain names in a phishing email code are most likely going to be
legit
> > domain names such as, ebay.com, bankofamerica,com, southtrustbank.com
etc..
> > These are the domains visible to the target/sucker.
On the other hand, I just got a phish insisting I had to update my
wellsfargo acco
On Sunday, July 31, 2005, 10:39:14 AM, Greg Allen wrote:
> People who do phishing are going to change their IP address (IP where the
> actual target/sucker is sent) frequently. They are also probably going to
> use random and ever changing computer IPs outside the US for obvious legal
> reasons. Ma
On Sunday, July 31, 2005, 3:52:53 AM, Herb Martin wrote:
> Presumably -- now you have me interested so I am going to check
> -- ClamAV does more than a naive pattern match on the URI and
> apparently they even have (had) endless debates in the ClamAV
> newsgroups/lists on this subject.
Sure, and a
>>
>> I agree, we definitely need SURBL black lists. They have helped tremendously
>> against spam! I just feel that it would be chasing one's tail a bit to try
>> to catch phishing in SURBL.
>>
>> People who do phishing are going to change their IP address (IP where the
>> actual target/sucker i
I agree, we definitely need SURBL black lists. They have helped tremendously
against spam! I just feel that it would be chasing one's tail a bit to try
to catch phishing in SURBL.
People who do phishing are going to change their IP address (IP where the
actual target/sucker is sent) frequently. Th
> ClamAV is designed to protect against viruses. While their
> anti-phishing function works well, phishes and spam are not
> viruses. They probably felt the need to do something because
> the phishing threat is pretty serious, or can be if people
> get tricked by them, but we've had a SURBL p
On Saturday, July 30, 2005, 11:47:40 PM, Greg Allen wrote:
> It seems like this would be a hard thing to do by IPs. If you were to use
> Clamav and the Spamassassin hook (see wiki for it), you may get better near
> real-time phishing protection. That is what I do here any way. I give Clamav
> a 100
It seems like this would be a hard thing to do by IPs. If you were to use
Clamav and the Spamassassin hook (see wiki for it), you may get better near
real-time phishing protection. That is what I do here any way. I give Clamav
a 100 score. That's my 2 cents anyway.
-Original Message-
Fro
