[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I added a dummy mx record (lowest preference) as we all know its
generally the one th spammers target first, which is getting hit with
about 50% of our daily connections, of which i defer all of them at a
very low overhead.
May I ask what kind of software/setti
On Wed, 25 May 2005 16:13:45 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> >On Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 6:56:08 AM, Ronan McGlue wrote:
> >> I added a dummy mx record (lowest preference) as we all know its
> >> generally the one th spammers target first, which is getting hit
> >> with about 50% of
>...
>
>On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 4:13:45 PM, lists lists wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 6:56:08 AM, Ronan McGlue wrote:
I added a dummy mx record (lowest preference) as we all know its
generally the one th spammers target first, which is getting hit with
about 50% of our d
On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 4:13:45 PM, lists lists wrote:
>>On Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 6:56:08 AM, Ronan McGlue wrote:
>>> I added a dummy mx record (lowest preference) as we all know its
>>> generally the one th spammers target first, which is getting hit with
>>> about 50% of our daily connect
On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 5:43:41 PM, evan wrote:
> Also look at honeyd.org for how honeypots are catching spammers.
> Spamhaus uses
> a similar scheme where unknown and unused domains sit on servers across the
> world. Any mail the server gets is obviously spam since no one should be
> sending
Do you have any links to linux based "fake proxypots" ?
They sound cool, or maybe its just fun to say...
Look for implementations of "Teergrube" on google.
A famous one which shut down awhile back is LaBrea - which uses similar
technology for catching worms.
There is a Linux netfilter plugin
On Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 6:56:08 AM, Ronan McGlue wrote:
I added a dummy mx record (lowest preference) as we all know its
generally the one th spammers target first, which is getting hit with
about 50% of our daily connections, of which i defer all of them at a
very low overhead.
Some of t
> I added a dummy mx record (lowest preference) as we all know its
generally the one th spammers target first, which is getting hit with
about 50% of our daily connections, of which i defer all of them at a
very low overhead.
May I ask what kind of software/settings do you use to defer the
Dale Blount wrote:
Morning Ronan,
I added a dummy mx record (lowest preference) as we all know its
generally the one th spammers target first, which is getting hit with
about 50% of our daily connections, of which i defer all of them at a
very low overhead.
May I ask what kind of softwa
Ronan McGlue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/24/2005
08:56:08 AM:
> we recently acquired 7 ninja machines for various purpouses...
>
[snip]
> I feel like with this arsenal at my disposal the spammers should
at
> least make an effort!!!
>
> thoughts?
> --
Kind of like the rappers that spen
Morning Ronan,
> I added a dummy mx record (lowest preference) as we all know its
> generally the one th spammers target first, which is getting hit with
> about 50% of our daily connections, of which i defer all of them at a
> very low overhead.
>
May I ask what kind of software/settings do
On Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 6:56:08 AM, Ronan McGlue wrote:
> I added a dummy mx record (lowest preference) as we all know its
> generally the one th spammers target first, which is getting hit with
> about 50% of our daily connections, of which i defer all of them at a
> very low overhead.
Some o
le at peak times... plus theres 1.1Gig free (top)...
anyway is it right for me to be a little dissapointed becuase with all
this hardware/firepower to nuke the spam( bayes / dcc / pyzor / razor /
surbl) as it would appear that we didnt need it.(the new hardware)
*BECAUSE*
I added a dummy mx r
13 matches
Mail list logo
