On 10/14/2010 8:26 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:
On 2:59 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
NOTE: I changed the domains below to 'dot info' as the mailing list
rejected my initial submission.
I'm pretty sure it's not just me but there is some constant spammin
On 2:59 PM, Julian Yap wrote:
NOTE: I changed the domains below to 'dot info' as the mailing list
rejected my initial submission.
I'm pretty sure it's not just me but there is some constant spamming
from dot info domains. Perhaps for the past 2 months or so.
Often they send hundreds per day a
Hello Julian Yap,
Am 2010-10-12 10:32:39, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> NOTE: I changed the domains below to 'dot info' as the mailing list
> rejected my initial submission.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's not just me but there is some constant spamming
> from dot info domains. Perhaps for the pas
On 10/12/2010 8:14 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> [Added after re-reading: Same request. Which ones do hit, optionaly
> which ones don't?]
For the IPs mentioned:
217.23.6.209
204.45.150.196
64.32.6.4
173.234.224.131
184.107.29.11
72.55.165.139
67.159.50.131
174.37.134.225
...here is a tally o
On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 14:22 -1000, Julian Yap wrote:
> 2010/10/12 Karsten Bräckelmann :
> > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 14:03 -1000, Julian Yap wrote:
> >> Many of the don't trigger the RCVD_IN_* rules. Does anyone implement
> >> their own private DNS black list?
> >
> > Many of what?
>
> Many of the
2010/10/12 Karsten Bräckelmann :
> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 14:03 -1000, Julian Yap wrote:
>> 2010/10/12 Karsten Bräckelmann :
>> > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 10:32 -1000, Julian Yap wrote:
>> > > Are people using automated IP blacklists or something like that?
>> >
>> > Yes. SA even uses them by default.
On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 14:03 -1000, Julian Yap wrote:
> 2010/10/12 Karsten Bräckelmann :
> > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 10:32 -1000, Julian Yap wrote:
Doh! Upon re-reading, I just realized that you are the OP of this
thread, not Peter. So, please, Julian, think of most (if not all) my
questions being d
11:41 a.m.
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Constant .info domain spam
>
> On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 11:16 +1300, Peter Lowish wrote:
> > How are RCVD_IN_* rules implemented Karsten?
>
> They are generally DNS BL checks, some of which do (and are safe for)
2010/10/12 Karsten Bräckelmann :
> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 10:32 -1000, Julian Yap wrote:
>> NOTE: I changed the domains below to 'dot info' as the mailing list
>> rejected my initial submission.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure it's not just me but there is some constant spamming
>> from dot info domains. Pe
I confirm that on revisiting, RCVD_IN_* rules are implemented - thanks for your
help
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2010 11:41 a.m.
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Constant .info domain spam
. Like, the actual answer to my previous question.
> -Original Message-
> From: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2010 10:05 a.m.
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Constant .info domain spam
>
> On Tue, 201
: Karsten Bräckelmann [mailto:guent...@rudersport.de]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2010 10:05 a.m.
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Constant .info domain spam
On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 10:32 -1000, Julian Yap wrote:
> NOTE: I changed the domains below to 'dot info' as the mailing li
On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 10:32 -1000, Julian Yap wrote:
> NOTE: I changed the domains below to 'dot info' as the mailing list
> rejected my initial submission.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's not just me but there is some constant spamming
> from dot info domains. Perhaps for the past 2 months or so.
>
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
