John D. Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
Is there some reason pointing everyone at the coral cache of the
website won't work? Granted, coral is also intended for large files,
but it is distributed and is almo
Simon Standley wrote:
Like a lot of other folks, I've not been able to get through to RulesEmporium
for a while now.
Personally - I run RDJ by hand, once or twice a week (depending upon amount of
spam getting through), and find that usually does the trick ... but not any
more. Even this limit
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Kelson wrote:
I don't think the typical SA ruleset is big enough to take advantage of
BitTorrent.
However, what you might gain is the redundancy if (in fantasy
world) every user was also serving th
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 10:03:07AM -0700, John D. Hardin wrote:
> > I'll bring this up again: coral.
> >
> > Is there some reason pointing everyone at the coral cache of the
> > website won't work? Granted, coral is also intended for large files,
>
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 10:03:07AM -0700, John D. Hardin wrote:
I'll bring this up again: coral.
Is there some reason pointing everyone at the coral cache of the
website won't work? Granted, coral is also intended for large files,
but it is distributed and is almost tra
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 10:03:07AM -0700, John D. Hardin wrote:
> I'll bring this up again: coral.
>
> Is there some reason pointing everyone at the coral cache of the
> website won't work? Granted, coral is also intended for large files,
> but it is distributed and is almost transparent...
Bec
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
> http://www.rulseemporium.com.nyud.net:8080/
crap. That should of course be:
http://www.rulesemporium.com.nyud.net:8080/
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
>
> > Is there some reason pointing everyone at the coral cache of the
> > website won't work? Granted, coral is also intended for large files,
> > but it is distributed and is almost transparent...
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Kelson wrote:
I don't think the typical SA ruleset is big enough to take advantage of
BitTorrent.
However, what you might gain is the redundancy if (in fantasy
world) every user was also serving th
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, John D. Hardin wrote:
>
> Is there some reason pointing everyone at the coral cache of the
> website won't work? Granted, coral is also intended for large files,
> but it is distributed and is almost transparent...
Well right now, www.rulesemporium.com came up in a few sec
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Kelson wrote:
>
> > I don't think the typical SA ruleset is big enough to take advantage of
> > BitTorrent.
>
> However, what you might gain is the redundancy if (in fantasy
> world) every user was also serving them out v
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Kelson wrote:
> I don't think the typical SA ruleset is big enough to take advantage of
> BitTorrent. Too much overhead. For comparison, Firefox updates are typically
> several hundred kilobytes (on Windows & Linux, anyway), and they've looked
> into torrents and concluded t
Like a lot of other folks, I've not been able to get through to RulesEmporium
for a while now.
Personally - I run RDJ by hand, once or twice a week (depending upon amount of
spam getting through), and find that usually does the trick ... but not any
more. Even this limited amount of activity is
Anders Norrbring wrote:
Henrik Krohns skrev:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 07:44:37PM -0400, Phil Barnett wrote:
We can't be the first people to come up against this problem. How
have others solved it?
Bunch'o'Mirrors? Crude and effective.
*raise a hand* I volonteer to mirror, I have lots of bot
Mike Grau wrote:
If your IP is blocked, for whatever reason, perhaps a proxy would
help you until your IP is unblocked.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rulesemporium.com%2F&langpair=fr%7Cen
I bet the 'donate' link would help :-)
Hmm, I doubt it, seeing that SA
Mike Grau wrote:
If your IP is blocked, for whatever reason, perhaps a proxy would
help you until your IP is unblocked.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rulesemporium.com%2F&langpair=fr%7Cen
I bet the 'donate' link would help :-)
Hmm, I doubt it, seeing that SA
If your IP is blocked, for whatever reason, perhaps a proxy would help
you until your IP is unblocked.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rulesemporium.com%2F&langpair=fr%7Cen
I bet the 'donate' link would help :-)
Hmm, I doubt it, seeing that SARE has received 3
Phil Barnett wrote:
How about releasing the ruleset via torrent or something similar. Anything
that you could do to distribute the load and location would make a ddos
attack less effective. While there might not be a lot of people on this list
who can use their server to take on the entire DDOS
Phil Barnett writes:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Phil Barnett writes:
> > > On Wednesday 11 July 2007, SARE Webmaster wrote:
> > > > There has been discussion of taking down the public site, opening
> > > > something new ( private access, invite only, acl by ip, etc), in ho
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Justin Mason wrote:
> Phil Barnett writes:
> > On Wednesday 11 July 2007, SARE Webmaster wrote:
> > > There has been discussion of taking down the public site, opening
> > > something new ( private access, invite only, acl by ip, etc), in hopes
> > > to avoid ddos and prov
Phil Barnett writes:
> On Wednesday 11 July 2007, SARE Webmaster wrote:
> > There has been discussion of taking down the public site, opening
> > something new ( private access, invite only, acl by ip, etc), in hopes
> > to avoid ddos and provide better services, more requent rule updates,
> > and
Henrik Krohns skrev:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 07:44:37PM -0400, Phil Barnett wrote:
We can't be the first people to come up against this problem. How have others
solved it?
Bunch'o'Mirrors? Crude and effective.
*raise a hand* I volonteer to mirror, I have lots of both hd and bw
capacity to
From: "Phil Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wednesday 11 July 2007, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 7/12/2007 12:50 AM, Phil Barnett wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 July 2007, SARE Webmaster wrote:
>> There has been discussion of taking down the public site, opening
>> something new ( private access, invit
At 04:00 PM 7/11/2007, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
hey
great ideas - who volunteers to setup the Torrent stuff and manage it all ?
I wouldn't know how to do that, but would be willing to offer some of
my tiny server and bandwidth to the cause.
Current system is OS X Server, but will be ported
On Wednesday 11 July 2007, Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 7/12/2007 12:50 AM, Phil Barnett wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 July 2007, SARE Webmaster wrote:
> >> There has been discussion of taking down the public site, opening
> >> something new ( private access, invite only, acl by ip, etc), in hopes
>
Phil Barnett wrote:
> How about releasing the ruleset via torrent or something similar. Anything
> that you could do to distribute the load and location would make a ddos
> attack less effective. While there might not be a lot of people on this list
> who can use their server to take on the ent
On 7/12/2007 12:50 AM, Phil Barnett wrote:
On Wednesday 11 July 2007, SARE Webmaster wrote:
There has been discussion of taking down the public site, opening
something new ( private access, invite only, acl by ip, etc), in hopes
to avoid ddos and provide better services, more requent rule update
On Wednesday 11 July 2007, SARE Webmaster wrote:
> There has been discussion of taking down the public site, opening
> something new ( private access, invite only, acl by ip, etc), in hopes
> to avoid ddos and provide better services, more requent rule updates,
> and so on. We are trying our be
Robert - eLists wrote:
Praise God Almighty!
We were able to spend more than a few seconds and many click on the
rulesemporium website.
Awesome.
As it says, was it moved over to vr.org ???
A couple years ago... yup. Which is now netactuate.com
--
Dallas Engelken
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
Ken A wrote:
Mike Grau wrote:
A little misinformation tossed to spammers isn't bad here.
I hear there's a mirror in Afghanistan too. And by all means.. when
you browse the site.. click the stop button in your browser between
it's loading each image on each page, then click the start button
If your IP is blocked, for whatever reason, perhaps a proxy would help
you until your IP is unblocked.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rulesemporium.com%2F&langpair=fr%7Cen
I bet the 'donate' link would help :-)
Ken
Okay, done. We'll see if it helps.
Mike
Mike Grau wrote:
A little misinformation tossed to spammers isn't bad here. I
hear there's a mirror in Afghanistan too. And by all means.. when you
browse the site.. click the stop button in your browser between it's
loading each image on each page, then click the start button again.
It's t
A little misinformation tossed to spammers isn't bad here. I
hear there's a mirror in Afghanistan too. And by all means.. when you
browse the site.. click the stop button in your browser between it's
loading each image on each page, then click the start button again. It's
tricky, but if you
jdow wrote:
From: "Ken A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SARE Webmaster wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Loren
Wilton wrote:
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium
Hi!
Wouldn't you say the DDOS protection theory and/or implementation is broken
if topology and routing is not taken into account?
You know, we are not posting to this list to rag on them, we just wanna be
able to hit the website for info when necessary and without being tossed in
the crapper
> As I said, we use a trick that makes the fetches work. It does not get
> us tarred by the DoS filter. So access to the web site is really easy.
> I also check "when I feel like it" rather than hourly as I've heard some
> "people" work. Weekly is more than enough unless you see a notification
> h
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Loren Wilton wrote:
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is
Praise God Almighty!
We were able to spend more than a few seconds and many click on the
rulesemporium website.
Awesome.
As it says, was it moved over to vr.org ???
- rh
>
> As has been noted already, by Dallas, it's a problem with at least one
> of their network links being saturated by the DoS, not the DoS protection.
>
>
> Daryl
Daryl
Wouldn't you say the DDOS protection theory and/or implementation is broken
if topology and routing is not taken into accou
>
> The errors have nothing to do with the DoS protection, but saturated
> links. The insertion of a few seconds of delay between queries, or a 20
> minute delay in my case, will do nothing to resolve the issue.
>
> Daryl
Daryl,
Saturdated?
You gotta be kidding me...
In this day and age...
>
> As I said, we use a trick that makes the fetches work. It does not get
> us tarred by the DoS filter. So access to the web site is really easy.
> I also check "when I feel like it" rather than hourly as I've heard some
> "people" work. Weekly is more than enough unless you see a notification
>
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Loren Wilton wrote:
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues again?
I can rarely
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues
From: "Ken A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SARE Webmaster wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Loren
Wilton wrote:
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issue
jdow wrote:
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues again?
I can rarely get there (via a browser).
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Loren Wilton wrote:
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues again?
I can rarely get there (v
From: "Loren Wilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues again?
I can rarely get there (via a browser). So rarely th
From: "Robert - eLists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I can rarely get there (via a browser). So rarely the site is almost
useless.
Mike,
Almost???
Bwahh... that is a good one.
You are far too kind...
- rh
Gee, it just worked for me tickety-boo. But then I have fixed my tool.
which uses wget,
At 04:57 AM 7/10/2007, SARE Webmaster wrote:
Ok, so the word is that the telia link is saturated with traffic
from the ddos yet.. I'd like some traceroutes to
www.rulesemporium.com for anyone that is having problems.
From my Windows machine...
Tracing route to www.rulesemporium.com [209.20
Duane Hill wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 at 07:01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
At 04:57 AM Tuesday, 7/10/2007, SARE Webmaster wrote -=>
Ok, so the word is that the telia link is saturated with traffic from
the ddos yet.. I'd like some traceroutes to www.rulesemporium.com
for anyone t
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 at 14:15 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 at 07:01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
At 04:57 AM Tuesday, 7/10/2007, SARE Webmaster wrote -=>
Ok, so the word is that the telia link is saturated with traffic from the
ddos yet.. I'd like some
dendarii ~ # traceroute www.rulesemporium.com
traceroute to unknown.prolexic.com (209.200.135.151), 30 hops max, 38
byte packets
1 athena (10.1.0.254) 0.442 ms 0.258 ms 0.242 ms
2 * * *
3 P6-7.LCR-01.STTLWA.verizon-gni.net (130.81.35.128) 18.870 ms
18.744 ms 18.676 ms
4 so-6-0-0-0.
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 at 07:01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] confabulated:
At 04:57 AM Tuesday, 7/10/2007, SARE Webmaster wrote -=>
Ok, so the word is that the telia link is saturated with traffic from the
ddos yet.. I'd like some traceroutes to www.rulesemporium.com for anyone
that is having probl
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Ed Kasky wrote:
> 6 te-3-4.car3.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.110.113) 647.873
> ms 743.477 ms 1185.795 ms
> 7 ae-2-56.bbr2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.102.161) 1186.617 ms
> ae-2-54.bbr2.LosAngeles1.Level3.net (4.68.102.97) 1187.442 ms
> ae-2-52.bbr2.LosAngeles1
SARE Webmaster wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Loren
Wilton wrote:
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues again?
I can rarely get there (
Ok, so the word is that the telia link is saturated with traffic from
the ddos yet.. I'd like some traceroutes to www.rulesemporium.com for
anyone that is having problems.
# traceroute www.rulesemporium.com
traceroute to www.rulesemporium.com (209.200.135.151), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packet
At 04:57 AM Tuesday, 7/10/2007, SARE Webmaster wrote -=>
Ok, so the word is that the telia link is saturated with traffic
from the ddos yet.. I'd like some traceroutes to
www.rulesemporium.com for anyone that is having problems.
The issue with the html found in rulesets (the "0.1 refresh" pa
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Loren
Wilton wrote:
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues again?
I can rarely get there (via a browser). So rare
Loren Wilton wrote:
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues again?
I can rarely get there (via a browser). So rarely the site is almost
usel
Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues again?
I can rarely get there (via a browser). So rarely the site is almost
useless.
I've been hav
>
> I can rarely get there (via a browser). So rarely the site is almost
> useless.
Mike,
Almost???
Bwahh... that is a good one.
You are far too kind...
- rh
>>> Mike Grau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/09/07 5:15 PM >>>
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
> I can't get here:
> http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
> Is rulesemporium having issues again?
I can rarely get there (via a browser). So rarely the site is almost
useless.
I've bee
At 02:01 PM Monday, 7/9/2007, Joe Zitnik wrote -=>
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues again?
I have one server that is fine but a second that keeps stalling on
different rules. On the first attempt it froze on
99_FVGT_Tripwire.cf and the secon
On 07/09/2007 04:01 PM the voices made Joe Zitnik write:
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues again?
I can rarely get there (via a browser). So rarely the site is almost
useless.
I can't get here:
http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules
Is rulesemporium having issues again?
Just worked for me.
Loren
On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 16:36 +0100, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> Is it worth adding mirrors for the rules? I'm more than happy to do so
> and can probably rope in a few others.
>
> I should imagine a fair few others on list would be prepared to act as
> mirrors too.
It's worth mentioning that, as someo
On 6/29/2007 5:53 PM, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:38:48 -0700, Jerry Durand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:30 AM, -- [ UxBoD ] -- wrote:
Same here :(
He announces a new, super dandy spam killing plugin and you think he
wouldn't get a DoS attack?
That's w
On 6/29/2007 5:53 PM, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:38:48 -0700, Jerry Durand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:30 AM, -- [ UxBoD ] -- wrote:
Same here :(
He announces a new, super dandy spam killing plugin and you think he
wouldn't get a DoS attack?
That's w
On 6/29/2007 5:38 PM, Jerry Durand wrote:
On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:30 AM, -- [ UxBoD ] -- wrote:
Same here :(
He announces a new, super dandy spam killing plugin and you think he
wouldn't get a DoS attack?
That's what happens when you do good work. :(
nah... he DOS'd himself
will be ba
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:38:48 -0700, Jerry Durand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:30 AM, -- [ UxBoD ] -- wrote:
>
>> Same here :(
>
>He announces a new, super dandy spam killing plugin and you think he
>wouldn't get a DoS attack?
>
>That's what happens when you do good work.
On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:30 AM, -- [ UxBoD ] -- wrote:
Same here :(
He announces a new, super dandy spam killing plugin and you think he
wouldn't get a DoS attack?
That's what happens when you do good work. :(
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:30:25 +0100, --[ UxBoD ]-- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Same here :(
>
>On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:28:51 -0400, "Joe Zitnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is it having troubles again? I'm having problems reaching the site.
>>
>> --
>> This message has been scanned for viruses a
Same here :(
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:28:51 -0400, "Joe Zitnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it having troubles again? I'm having problems reaching the site.
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
--
--[ UxBoD ]
On 6/10/2007 11:23 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
On Jun 9, 2007, at 12:19, Dallas Engelken wrote:
Rulesemporium.com will be coming back online at approximately 1800
GMT. Special thanks to Prolexic (http://www.prolexic.com) for the
DDoS protection.
It looks like rules_du_jour had some trouble w
On Jun 9, 2007, at 12:19, Dallas Engelken wrote:
Rulesemporium.com will be coming back online at approximately 1800
GMT. Special thanks to Prolexic (http://www.prolexic.com) for the
DDoS protection.
It looks like rules_du_jour had some trouble with the downtime:
[2753] warn: config: fa
Gene Heskett schrieb:
On Saturday 09 June 2007, Dallas Engelken wrote:
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 6/9/2007 6:50 PM, Jerry Durand wrote:
At 09:19 AM 6/9/2007, Dallas Engelken wrote:
Rulesemporium.com will be coming back online at approximately 1800
GMT. Special thank
On Saturday 09 June 2007, Dallas Engelken wrote:
>Yet Another Ninja wrote:
>> On 6/9/2007 6:50 PM, Jerry Durand wrote:
>>> At 09:19 AM 6/9/2007, Dallas Engelken wrote:
Rulesemporium.com will be coming back online at approximately 1800
GMT. Special thanks to Prolexic (http://www.prolexic
Jerry Durand wrote:
At 09:19 AM 6/9/2007, Dallas Engelken wrote:
Rulesemporium.com will be coming back online at approximately 1800
GMT. Special thanks to Prolexic (http://www.prolexic.com) for the
DDoS protection.
Great news and good work! I assume we can re-enable sa-update for
tonigh
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 6/9/2007 6:50 PM, Jerry Durand wrote:
At 09:19 AM 6/9/2007, Dallas Engelken wrote:
Rulesemporium.com will be coming back online at approximately 1800
GMT. Special thanks to Prolexic (http://www.prolexic.com) for the
DDoS protection.
Great news and good work!
On 6/9/2007 6:50 PM, Jerry Durand wrote:
At 09:19 AM 6/9/2007, Dallas Engelken wrote:
Rulesemporium.com will be coming back online at approximately 1800
GMT. Special thanks to Prolexic (http://www.prolexic.com) for the
DDoS protection.
Great news and good work! I assume we can re-enable
On Saturday 09 June 2007, Jerry Durand wrote:
>At 09:19 AM 6/9/2007, Dallas Engelken wrote:
>>Rulesemporium.com will be coming back online at approximately 1800
>>GMT. Special thanks to Prolexic (http://www.prolexic.com) for the
>>DDoS protection.
>
>Great news and good work! I assume we can re-
At 09:19 AM 6/9/2007, Dallas Engelken wrote:
Rulesemporium.com will be coming back online at approximately 1800
GMT. Special thanks to Prolexic (http://www.prolexic.com) for the
DDoS protection.
Great news and good work! I assume we can re-enable sa-update for
tonight's run.
Thanks for
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 6/7/2007 2:52 PM, Jake Vickers wrote:
Steven Stern wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My systems all were unable to connect for their daily RDJ update
yesterday. I time out trying to reach http://rulesemporium.com. Does
anyone know what's happeni
On 6/7/2007 2:52 PM, Jake Vickers wrote:
Steven Stern wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My systems all were unable to connect for their daily RDJ update
yesterday. I time out trying to reach http://rulesemporium.com. Does
anyone know what's happening?
- --
Same issue he
Steven Stern wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My systems all were unable to connect for their daily RDJ update
yesterday. I time out trying to reach http://rulesemporium.com. Does
anyone know what's happening?
- --
Same issue here. 404 errors.
smime.p7s
Description: S
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 07:28 -0500, Steven Stern wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> My systems all were unable to connect for their daily RDJ update
> yesterday. I time out trying to reach http://rulesemporium.com. Does
> anyone know what's happening?
Apparently a DDOS
jp wrote:
> Does anyone know how to get the replacements for the 88_FVGT* rules?
> I was trying to update them and the ones at www.rulesemporium.com
> refer to a new numbering system that starts with 00_FVGT. Those files
> don't exist. Rulesemporium is the master site for the the files
> according
Title: RE: Rulesemporium rules
> -Original Message-
> From: Duncan Findlay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:38 AM
> To: Dan Horne
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Rulesemporium rules
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 1
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 04:43:58PM -0400, Dan Horne wrote:
> >> 10) Making top ten lists.
> Hilarious. Can I subscribe to those top ten lists with RDJ?
Are they going to be licensed with the Apache license?
/me ducks
--
Duncan Findlay
pgpbI5yKn40MO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Give Chris a break - sometimes we ALL just feel silly and have to vent.
{^_-}
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Zitnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A simple no would have sufficed.
On 10/10/2006 at 4:25 PM, Chris Santerre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Joe Z
Just out of curiosity, is there a reason why the updates on the
rulesmporium rules have dropped so drastically lately? I understand
that the authors all have other things to do, and I am EXTREMELY
GRATEFUL for all their hard work. I was just wondering if there were
any other reasons.
Nope, tha
Joe Zitnik wrote:
A simple no would have sufficed.
But I so enjoyed the answer. What was the question again?
DAve
On 10/10/2006 at 4:25 PM, Chris Santerre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Joe Zitnik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:
>> 10) Making top ten lists.
Hilarious. Can I subscribe to those top ten lists with RDJ?
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, u
Title: RE: Rulesemporium rules
>
>
> Joe Zitnik wrote:
> > A simple no would have sufficed.
>
> It wouldn't have been as amusing though :)
LOL, Joe don't get upset. You obviously haven't seen enough of my posts to know what I'm like. :)
We
Joe Zitnik wrote:
> A simple no would have sufficed.
It wouldn't have been as amusing though :)
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Quality Business Hosting & Colocation
http://www.blacknight.ie/
Tel. 1850 927 280
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 59
A simple no would have sufficed.
>>> On 10/10/2006 at 4:25 PM, Chris Santerre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Zitnik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:39 PM
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Rulesemporium rules
Title: RE: Rulesemporium rules
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Zitnik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:39 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Rulesemporium rules
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, is there a reaso
98 matches
Mail list logo
