Hello
Am 23.09.2016 um 22:10 schrieb Lindsay Haisley:
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 15:28 -0400, Bill Cole wrote:
As much as I love BIND (no, seriously, I do) it's very hard to recommend
it as the first choice for a simple recursive resolver.
Setting up bind as a "simple recursive resolver" is simpli
On Sat, 2016-09-24 at 00:15 -0500, Dave Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 19:03 -0400, listsb-spamassas...@bitrate.net
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > consider that, to do the work described as "forwarding" in many of
> > > these references, the nam
On September 24, 2016 6:12:10 AM EDT, Thomas Barth wrote:
>Instead of URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 I see URIBL_ABUSE_SURBL=1.948,
>URIBL_BLACK=1.7
>
>It s still not ok, is it?
That means it is working as intended, and your message has triggered hits on
two separate blacklists.
--Sean
John,
thanks a TON for your efforts! I was afraid this would be hard
to catch. :(
On the bright side, the campaign has been morphing, and they are
now (IMO) much less enticing, which is a partial victory. :)
** Update:
The emails have gone thru two more significant morphs, first with
To.Realname
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, John Hardin wrote:
>Chip, could you send me some spamples of non-image data: messages
>offlist? The only ones I have anywhere are images.
Sent last week - thanks for your ongoing work on this John! :)
After that request, I decided to add (in my post SA filter)
a minimally sc
Here's a spample of a well done "Dropbox" Phish sent thru Gmail,
containing a custom URL shortener which (apparently) did _NOT_
exist at message arrival time:
http://puffin.net/software/spam/samples/0045_shortener_phish.txt
I MUNGED the To & From headers, however I left the original From
do
