Randy a écrit :
> mouss wrote:
>> Ned Slider a écrit :
>>
>>> Randy wrote:
>>>
Ken A wrote:
> Randy wrote:
>
> Are you sure it's not spam bounces (joe job)?
> This is more common than a spam attack
> Ken
>
>
Yeah we get those in spurts
On Tue, October 14, 2008 21:16, Ned Slider wrote:
> least then you could save a bunch of hits against Spamhaus and reject
> the mail as early as possible in the smtp process.
in main.cf
smtpd_client_restriction =
reject_unlisted_recipient
reject_rbl_client ...
--
Benny Pedersen
Need more we
mouss wrote:
Ned Slider a écrit :
Randy wrote:
Ken A wrote:
Randy wrote:
Are you sure it's not spam bounces (joe job)?
This is more common than a spam attack
Ken
Yeah we get those in spurts, but this appears to not be the case. We
are getting thousands of connects fr
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Randy wrote:
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Randy wrote:
> It appears to be a spambot ( botnet ) , and it really isn't enough
> traffic to cause DDOS so I really should change the topic header. The
> traffic may be 4 - 10 emails per day for this emai
John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Randy wrote:
It appears to be a spambot ( botnet ) , and it really isn't enough
traffic to cause DDOS so I really should change the topic header. The
traffic may be 4 - 10 emails per day for this email address.
To a _single_ invalid address? If
Ned Slider a écrit :
> Randy wrote:
>> Ken A wrote:
>>> Randy wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you sure it's not spam bounces (joe job)?
>>> This is more common than a spam attack
>>> Ken
>>>
>> Yeah we get those in spurts, but this appears to not be the case. We
>> are getting thousands of connects from non MX
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Randy wrote:
It appears to be a spambot ( botnet ) , and it really isn't enough
traffic to cause DDOS so I really should change the topic header. The
traffic may be 4 - 10 emails per day for this email address.
To a _single_ invalid address? If it were me I'd acce
Randy wrote:
Ken A wrote:
Randy wrote:
Are you sure it's not spam bounces (joe job)?
This is more common than a spam attack
Ken
Yeah we get those in spurts, but this appears to not be the case. We are
getting thousands of connects from non MX hosts and many are blocked at
the smtp layer by o
Ken A wrote:
Randy wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Why would a botnet waste resources by sending tens of thousands of
spam to a single e-mail address?
Is it really a spambot or could it be a DDOS attack?
Martin
It is both but not actually. :)
It appears to be a spambot ( botnet
Randy wrote:
> We are being spammed by a botnet to a single email address which makes
> it difficult to block. Spamhaus catches about 1/2 of them, but the
> rest are blocked via postfix becuase this is an old account and does
> not have a mailbox.
Are you sure this isn't backscatter where the botn
Randy wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Why would a botnet waste resources by sending tens of thousands of
spam to a single e-mail address?
Is it really a spambot or could it be a DDOS attack?
Martin
It is both but not actually. :)
It appears to be a spambot ( botnet ) , and it rea
Martin Gregorie wrote:
Why would a botnet waste resources by sending tens of thousands of spam
to a single e-mail address?
Is it really a spambot or could it be a DDOS attack?
Martin
It is both but not actually. :)
It appears to be a spambot ( botnet ) , and it really isn't enou
> Why would a botnet waste resources by sending tens of thousands of spam
> to a single e-mail address?
>
Is it really a spambot or could it be a DDOS attack?
Martin
13 matches
Mail list logo
