spam increase (x10) from the last 2 days...
maybe any reactivated botnet???
is someone noticing it as well?
-
PedroD
>
>> we are noticing a huge spam increase (x10) from the last 2 days... maybe any
>> reactivated botnet???
>>
>> is someone noticing it as well?
>>
>> -
>> PedroD
Nope. We are celebrating the 5th month in a raw with zero spam in users folders.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 18:12, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> Out of curiosity...
>
> we are noticing a huge spam increase (x10) from the last 2 days... maybe any
> reactivated botnet???
>
> is some
of curiosity...
>
> we are noticing a huge spam increase (x10) from the last 2 days... maybe
> any reactivated botnet???
>
> is someone noticing it as well?
surely but nothing makes it through a proper MTA with postscreen and RBL
weights and so not a SA topic on a proper setup
a cont
Out of curiosity...
we are noticing a huge spam increase (x10) from the last 2 days... maybe any
reactivated botnet???
is someone noticing it as well?
-PedroD
-Original Message-
From: Mike Fahey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:14 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: spam increase
Has anyone else noticed a major increase in spam over the past two days?
I'm seen a 40% increase.
I've gone fro
I have, most of from countries I block to a spam trap folder for bayes.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Fahey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:14 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: spam increase
>
>
> Has anyone else
Has anyone else noticed a major increase in spam over the past two days?
I'm seen a 40% increase.
John Rudd wrote:
>
> On Aug 12, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
>
>>> It is very easy to unsubscribe at
>>> genutrust.com/trust . It would be impossible to get all the
>>
>> Even easier to add scores to SA rules so that thousands of users don't
>> have to individually unsubscribe from yo
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Stuart Johnston wrote:
> John D. Hardin wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> >
> >> (can we come up with an RBL for domains registered with jokers?)
> >
> > A while back I suggested a more-general spammer-friendly-registrar
> > RBL.
> >
> > Can anyone
On Aug 12, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
Whois registrat is joker
(can we come up with an RBL for domains registered with jokers?)
There are some legit domains hosted on joker :p
Ok, so out of thousands, there are 'some'.
You sleep with dogs, you get flees.
Bleh. As much
On Aug 12, 2006, at 7:42 AM, Michael Scheidell wrote:
It is very easy to unsubscribe at
genutrust.com/trust . It would be impossible to get all the
Even easier to add scores to SA rules so that thousands of users don't
have to individually unsubscribe from your partners lists.
Also, violatio
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
(can we come up with an RBL for domains registered with jokers?)
A while back I suggested a more-general spammer-friendly-registrar
RBL.
Can anyone give me a seed list of the registrars we would consider
"spammer-friendly"?
> -Original Message-
> From: Duncan Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:32 AM
> To: Michael Scheidell
> Subject: Re: SPAM: Increase in targeted spams
>
>
>
> > Whois registrat is joker
> > (can we come up with an RB
John D. Hardin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
(can we come up with an RBL for domains registered with jokers?)
A while back I suggested a more-general spammer-friendly-registrar
RBL.
Can anyone give me a seed list of the registrars we would consider
"spammer-friendly"?
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> (can we come up with an RBL for domains registered with jokers?)
A while back I suggested a more-general spammer-friendly-registrar
RBL.
Can anyone give me a seed list of the registrars we would consider
"spammer-friendly"? I want to try some ideas
> -Original Message-
> From: Genutrust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:58 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SPAM: Increase in targeted spams
>
>
>
> Just a quick note. I am from Genutrust.com. We do not harv
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, John Rudd wrote:
> Any service sending ads that doesn't regularly ask "still want to
> be on our list?" and automatically unsubscribe anyone who doesn't
> positively respond, has no business saying that they're not
> sending spam.
Most definitely true.
> To: Genutrust <[EMAI
I see this statement every so often, and frankly, I don't buy it.
If I sign up for a product registration with one of your partners, it
should not be my burden to be sure your partners don't use it for spam
and don't give it to you for spam (and, yes, it's still spam in that
situation). I
Just a quick note. I am from Genutrust.com. We do not harvest any
information, nor do we send spam email. If your user was on our list, it is
because she subscribed through one of our partners. It is very easy to
unsubscribe at genutrust.com/trust . It would be impossible to get all the
informatio
Title: SPAM: Increase in targeted spams
From: Chris Santerre
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 24,
2006 10:19 AMTo: Spaml (E-mail); SaTalk (E-mail)Subject:
SPAM: Increase in targeted spams
One of our users received a spam today from
genutrust .com, URL in
Title: SPAM: Increase in targeted spams
One of our users received a spam today from genutrust .com, URL in spam CHICHIMECA .COM
This spam was VERY targeted. User's first and last name, complete address, and her phone number. She informed me her phone number was listed with initials o
Bill Moseley wrote:
>
> I updated two very similar Woody machines that day, and this machine
> was trouble -- for some reason dist-upgraded removed a number of
> packages for a reason I'm not clear on. (Like Apache and Bind!)
>
OT and probably too late, but in case anyone else's planning to do t
From: Bill Moseley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 12:57:10PM -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> > If you don't specify trusted_networks or internal_networks, SA
> > tries to guess at your network. It assumes that the first
> > non-private IP that it sees is your external mail rel
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 12:57:10PM -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> If you don't specify trusted_networks or internal_networks, SA tries
> to guess at your network. It assumes that the first non-private IP
> that it sees is your external mail relay. If your frontline
> mailserver has a private IP, th
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:18:11AM -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> The most likely cause is a misconfigured trust path. 3.0.x introduced
> the ALL_TRUSTED rule. This rule is supposed to fire with a negative
> score if the message has not passed through any "untrusted" servers.
> A common problem is
From: Matthew Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Also make sure that if you are using bayes learning that
> spamassassin is still able to read the bayes_ files. There must
> have been some incompatibility with mine because I had to nuke
> everyones bayes_ files and return sa-learn so that bayes s
Also make sure that if you are using bayes learning that spamassassin is
still able to read the bayes_ files. There must have been some
incompatibility with mine because I had to nuke everyones bayes_ files
and return sa-learn so that bayes started kicking in again. Also the
config problem that B
From: Bill Moseley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I had a server running Debian Woody which was running, IIRC[1], 2.6x.
> After upgrading to Sarge now running 3.0.3-2 and exim 4.50-8 the users
> are complaining of a lot more spam getting through. I'm now seeing it
> also -- looking at a few of my
I'm stabbing in the dark a bit here, sorry.
I had a server running Debian Woody which was running, IIRC[1], 2.6x.
After upgrading to Sarge now running 3.0.3-2 and exim 4.50-8 the users
are complaining of a lot more spam getting through. I'm now seeing it
also -- looking at a few of my spam mailbo
30 matches
Mail list logo
