--- On Thu, 1/14/10, Ben Kamen wrote:
> I've been using spampoison.com of late. Kinda makes me laugh.
I use that resource too.
My web server's malicious robot list is shared with the mail server - so robot
sources get locked out from sending mail. At the firewall level, I use a TCP
TARPIT,
I've been using spampoison.com of late.
Kinda makes me laugh.
-Ben
--
Ben Kamen - O.D.T., S.P.
=
Email: bkamen AT benjammin DOT net Web: http://www.benjammin.net
__
--- On Thu, 1/14/10, Ben Kamen wrote:
> I had that for a bit where my low priority MX host was routed to self
> and SBC (Ameritech) used to reject any email from as their servers
> knew the seconday/low-priority route was bogus.
OK, but I'm not suggesting its use on a live host (or domain). I'm
On 1/14/2010 4:12 PM, - wrote:
I had that for a bit where my low priority MX host was routed to self and SBC
(Ameritech)
used to reject any email from as their servers knew the seconday/low-priority
route was bogus.
Poo.
-Ben
--
Ben Kamen - O.D.T., S.P.
Playing games with spammers is fun. You could always do something like this:
DNS records:
fake.hostname.example.com. IN MX 10 tarbaby.junkemailfilter.com.
MX 20 mail.example.invalid.
MX 30 localhost.
wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
> Kelson wrote on 01/14/2010 02:43:35 PM:
>
>> It's not the effect that's at issue, it's the process.
>>
>> The whole point of a honeypot is that you have a guarantee that no one
>> has ever requested that mail go to that address, so any mail sent there
>> is unsolicited by de
Kelson wrote on 01/14/2010 02:43:35 PM:
> It's not the effect that's at issue, it's the process.
>
> The whole point of a honeypot is that you have a guarantee that no one
> has ever requested that mail go to that address, so any mail sent there
> is unsolicited by definition.
>
> If you subscribe
On 1/14/2010 10:05 AM, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
Why shouldn't I find some honey-pot addresses and submit submit them to
subscribe?
Because, IMO, that subverts the purpose of honeypots. A honeypot
is designed as a passive spammer attractor; act
On 1/14/2010 12:05 PM, Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
Why shouldn't I find some honey-pot addresses and submit submit them to
subscribe?
Because, IMO, that subverts the purpose of honeypots. A honeypot
is designed as a passive spammer attractor; act
Andrzej Adam Filip wrote on 01/14/2010 01:05:49 PM:
> But actively un-subscribing not subscribed email addresses is OK
> => as far as I have heard the effect is almost identical :-)
In many cases that's probably true.
Upon further review of the headers, they are passing through mail
outsourcer
"David F. Skoll" wrote:
> wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
>
>> Why shouldn't I find some honey-pot addresses and submit submit them to
>> subscribe?
>
> Because, IMO, that subverts the purpose of honeypots. A honeypot
> is designed as a passive spammer attractor; actively subscribing
> someone is a no-no.
wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
Why shouldn't I find some honey-pot addresses and submit submit them to
subscribe?
Because, IMO, that subverts the purpose of honeypots. A honeypot
is designed as a passive spammer attractor; actively subscribing
someone is a no-no.
Regards,
David.
I just got spammed by a company that claims on their website "We hate SPAM
as much as you do." So why did they repeatedly send it to our abuse
address? They also sent it to almost every school district we filter email
for. To the best of my knowledge, none of them requested the email either.
Ne
13 matches
Mail list logo
