Charles Gregory wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
you belive that email sent from webmail is harder to spam scan then
submitted email from remote ?
No, my statement was that I believe spammers, like the rest of us,
follow the 20/80 rule, and hack the 80 percent of vulnerabilit
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Benny Pedersen wrote:
you belive that email sent from webmail is harder to spam scan then
submitted email from remote ?
No, my statement was that I believe spammers, like the rest of us, follow
the 20/80 rule, and hack the 80 percent of vulnerabilities that require
only 2
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009, LuKreme wrote:
Is it a custom webmail interface you wrote yourself?
The front end is custom, wrapping a standard client.
Any spammer who personally visited my site would be able to hack
it in seconds (with a stolen password, of course). But any existing
"canned" scripts wou
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 20:30 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 11-Aug-2009, at 08:58, Charles Gregory wrote:
> > Again, I could be wrong, and would welcome input on this, but my
> > feeling is that a webmail interface is a lot more trouble for a
> > spammer to write scripts for?
>
It's not really any
On 12-Aug-2009, at 20:40, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:30:20 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
Is it a custom webmail interface you wrote yourself? If so, then
sure,
that would be more of a pain. If it's Squirrelmail or something then
no, those scripts have been written ages ago.
you be
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:30:20 -0600, LuKreme wrote:
> On 11-Aug-2009, at 08:58, Charles Gregory wrote:
>> Again, I could be wrong, and would welcome input on this, but my
>> feeling is that a webmail interface is a lot more trouble for a
>> spammer to write scripts for?
one thing for sure is t
On 11-Aug-2009, at 08:58, Charles Gregory wrote:
Again, I could be wrong, and would welcome input on this, but my
feeling is that a webmail interface is a lot more trouble for a
spammer to write scripts for?
Is it a custom webmail interface you wrote yourself? If so, then sure,
that would
>> On 10.08.09 14:56, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>> Not at all. I know who logs on when, and I can easily disable their
>>> access.
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> I should made that more clear: If there are more _concurrent_ users on
>> the same IP (home/office network with
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10.08.09 14:56, Charles Gregory wrote:
Not at all. I know who logs on when, and I can easily disable their
access.
I should made that more clear: If there are more _concurrent_ users on
the same IP (home/office network with NAT), you only ca
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 10.08.09 11:07, Charles Gregory wrote:
>>> IMNSHO You shouldn't. You should only allow *your* customers with pop
>>> e-mail accounts on *your* servers to send mail.
>> 1.
>> If more customers send spam from the same IP address without authe
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Rick Macdougall wrote:
I can't speak for others but at my main job (20K+ email accounts) it
happens about once every 2 month's or so. Some how the spammer gets a
hold of someone's password and either uses smtp-auth or webmail to
send out spam.
"So
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10.08.09 11:07, Charles Gregory wrote:
IMNSHO You shouldn't. You should only allow *your* customers with pop
e-mail accounts on *your* servers to send mail.
1.
If more customers send spam from the same IP address without authentiaction,
you
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Rick Macdougall wrote:
I can't speak for others but at my main job (20K+ email accounts) it happens
about once every 2 month's or so. Some how the spammer gets a hold of
someone's password and either uses smtp-auth or webmail to send out spam.
"Somehow" is not that hard t
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 10.08.09 11:24, Rick Macdougall wrote:
I can't speak for others but at my main job (20K+ email accounts) it
happens about once every 2 month's or so. Some how the spammer gets a
hold of someone's password and either uses smtp-auth or webmail to send
out spa
> Charles Gregory wrote:
>> To be truthful, I have been doing this by default here, as well, but
>> find that it creates some problems for some users. So I am thinking
>> about opening up SMTP-AUTH ports. Trouble is (and its semi-relevance to
>> this list) I have to wonder if I am opening myse
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Res wrote:
>> if I'm in charge of the network for say this countries 5th largest
>> ISP, why SHOULD I allow customers of say our countries largest, or 25th
>> largest relay their mail via my systems...
On 10.08.09 11:07, Charles Gregory wrote:
> IMNSHO You shouldn't. Y
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Res wrote:
To be truthful, I have been doing this by default here, as well, but
find that it creates some problems for some users. So I am thinking
about opening up SMTP-AUTH ports. Trouble is (and its semi-relevance to
this list) I have to wonder if
17 matches
Mail list logo
