Normaly i would agree with you, but with as long as that address has
been sending virii e-mails, and no other e-mails, its an easy block. If
he was actualy on this list, he would have responded to this thread in
his own defense. since it would be a block from sending only, it would
kill one source.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 01:10:11PM -0600, Drag0n wrote:
> How about someone just blacklist [EMAIL PROTECTED] from sending
> e-mail to the list as his is the main sender? that or install a virii
> scanner on the listserv?
No, [EMAIL PROTECTED] must not be the original sender.
Everyone could send a
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 13:10 -0600, Drag0n wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 19:40 +0100, Robert Felber wrote:
> > Could please everyone setup his virus scanner to don't bounce virus mails?
> > A solution is, to store the mail locally, and contact the sender manually,
> > if
> > it is that neccessary.
How about someone just blacklist [EMAIL PROTECTED] from sending
e-mail to the list as his is the main sender? that or install a virii
scanner on the listserv?
Drag0n
dragonatlantacon.org
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 19:40 +0100, Robert Felber wrote:
> Could please everyone setup his virus scanner to don
Could please everyone setup his virus scanner to don't bounce virus mails?
A solution is, to store the mail locally, and contact the sender manually, if
it is that neccessary.
Bouncing/Rejecting is no solution to save bandwidth since the whole
mail already passed the the 1st reciving smtpd of the
--
Warning: Message delivery wasn't performed.
Reason: Our virus scanner detected very suspicious code in
the attachment of a mail addressed to a user of our system.
The following message will not be delivered:
From: [EMAIL PROT
Hello!
I've noticed a strange thing: when a client system generates an arp
query for an unexistent host, the routing cache entry is being made.
My system is Fedora 2 with vanilla 2.6.11.
the client is 10.1.1.2 with mask 255.255.0.0
the router/firewall is 10.1.1.1 with mask 255.255.255.0
Yes, the