Re: 0451.com
* Nigel Frankcom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/263 > > A few options there... - though it could as easily be their building > address... I'd rather go for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/263_(number) and then settle for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_prime -- Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-BerlinFax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962 IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 0451.com
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:04:06 -0400, Bill Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 01:29:36PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: >> * Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for >> > people to deal with than alphabetic domains. For example, 263.com is >> > China's second-largest ISP. You can't just assume that an all-numeric >> > domain is necessarily abusive, any more so than Yahoo or Fastmail. >> >> Is there any meaning to "263" in Chinese? > >It's either the average annual wage of a Wal-Mart supplier, or the >number of years that Mao predicted it would take the Revolution to >destroy the Great Satan[tm]. > >YMMV. > >William > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/263 A few options there... - though it could as easily be their building address...
Re: 0451.com
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 01:29:36PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: > * Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for > > people to deal with than alphabetic domains. For example, 263.com is > > China's second-largest ISP. You can't just assume that an all-numeric > > domain is necessarily abusive, any more so than Yahoo or Fastmail. > > Is there any meaning to "263" in Chinese? It's either the average annual wage of a Wal-Mart supplier, or the number of years that Mao predicted it would take the Revolution to destroy the Great Satan[tm]. YMMV. William
Re: 0451.com
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish wrote: > Yeah, Right... And Verisign never wildcarded domains either did they? Duh! > right back at you. > > > RFC 1123 section 2.1: > > > > The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952 > > Hostname vs DomainName The domain name system itself doesn't have any restrictions on labels: they are counted binary strings and can contain embedded nul bytes or even dots (see RFC 1035 section 5.1 for an example). Traditionally, RFC 952 host name syntax (as updated by RFC 1123) has also been used for mail domains and delegations from TLDs. The host name syntax described in RFC 1035 is informative, not normative. RFC 1912 is also informative, and it obviously misinterprets RFC 1123 which clearly allows all-numeric labels. All RFCs are not created equal and the earlier ones especially must be interpreted intelligently. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ FISHER: WEST OR NORTHWEST 4 OR 5 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD.
Re: 0451.com
From: "Hamish Marson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Duncan Hill wrote:
On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote:
| 2250 0733.com
Here are my numbers from last week:
5006 0451.com 3845 53.com
Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal
server: 440733.com 340451.com 110668.com 4 023.com
2 08.com 2 020.com 1 212.com 1 07770500.com 1
01191.com 1 004.com
However, the majority are already being rejected with my standard
rules in Postfix (like don't accept mail from certain netblocks).
I would have sworn there used to be a domain registration rule that
said pure-numeric domains were illegal, but I'm not sure.
The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and
be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's
purely numberic domains are illegal.
(e.g. From RFC 1035)
::= | " "
::= | "."
::= [ [ ] ]
::= |
::= | "-"
::= |
::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in
upper case and a through z in lower case
::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
Seems clear to me... And since RFC1035 is still current, I'm not sure why
purely numeric domains are considered acceptable. (Apart from I can't
think
of a really good reason apart from pedanticness to stop them).
Well, some browsers allow you to put in "google" for the address and
will self-complete to what it thinks you wants. If there is a number
only in there the browser will likely try to interpret the number
as an 32 IP address in decimal form.
All those addresses would hit network 0, though. And that is a reserved
net number.
{^_-}
Re: 0451.com
On Monday 07 August 2006 16:09, Tony Finch wrote: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote: > > The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and > > be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's > > purely numberic domains are illegal. > > No! Wrong! Totally wrong! If they were illegal they would never have been > allocated. Duh. > Yeah, Right... And Verisign never wildcarded domains either did they? Duh! right back at you. > RFC 1123 section 2.1: > > The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952 Hostname vs DomainName RFC1035 is still current. never superceeded. It states Domain names. RFC1123 says hostnames... In fact RFC1035 isn't even marked as updated! (At least the copies I'm looking at now) AFAICS RFC1123 only mentions hostnames, nothing about domains. A small semantic difference I know, but possibly an important one. I wonder what Cricket has to say about domain names being all digits? Possibly it comes under the be lenient in what you accept & rigid in what you present rule. RFC1912 throws more wood on the fire... Allowable characters in a label for a host name are only ASCII letters, digits, and the `-' character. Labels may not be all numbers, but may have a leading digit (e.g., 3com.com). Labels must end and begin only with a letter or digit. See [RFC 1035] and [RFC 1123]. (Labels were initially restricted in [RFC 1035] to start with a letter, and some older hosts still reportedly have problems with the relaxation in [RFC 1123].) Note there are some Internet hostnames which violate this rule (411.org, 1776.com). The presence of underscores in a label is allowed in [RFC 1033], except [RFC 1033] is informational only and was not defining a standard. There is at least one popular TCP/IP implementation which currently refuses to talk to hosts named with underscores in them. It must be noted that the language in [1035] is such that these rules are voluntary -- they are there for those who wish to minimize problems. Note that the rules for Internet host names also apply to hosts and addresses used in SMTP (See RFC 821). So even rfc1912 still thinks all digit domains are incorrect... But it interprets 1123 as meaning hosts & domains. But even in 1996 it was recognised that the registrars didn't really follow the RFC's properly... I still think all digit domains are probably worth a point or so. > [DNS:4]. One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the > restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a > letter or a digit. Host software MUST support this more liberal > syntax. > > Tony. pgpx2IGc4ElMm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 0451.com
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tony Finch wrote: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote: > > > > The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and > > be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's > > purely numberic domains are illegal. > > No! Wrong! Totally wrong! If they were illegal they would never have been > allocated. Duh. > > RFC 1123 section 2.1: > > The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952 > [DNS:4]. One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the > restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a > letter or a digit. Host software MUST support this more liberal > syntax. ...I guess not. Dammit, when am I going to learn to read my mailbox in *reverse* chronological order? -- John Hardin KA7OHZICQ#15735746http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED] key: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- The difference is that Unix has had thirty years of technical types demanding basic functionality of it. And the Macintosh has had fifteen years of interface fascist users shaping its progress. Windows has the hairpin turns of the Microsoft marketing machine and that's all.-- Red Drag Diva ---
Re: 0451.com
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote: > The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and > be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's > purely numberic domains are illegal. Should this be worth a point or so in the base ruleset? -- John Hardin KA7OHZICQ#15735746http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED] key: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- The difference is that Unix has had thirty years of technical types demanding basic functionality of it. And the Macintosh has had fifteen years of interface fascist users shaping its progress. Windows has the hairpin turns of the Microsoft marketing machine and that's all.-- Red Drag Diva ---
Re: 0451.com
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tony Finch wrote: On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote: The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's purely numberic domains are illegal. No! Wrong! Totally wrong! If they were illegal they would never have been allocated. Duh. RFC 1123 section 2.1: The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952 [DNS:4]. One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a letter or a digit. Host software MUST support this more liberal syntax. Ah, I thought I remembered something along those lines but couldn't find the reference. Also, for what it's worth, there are some legitimate businesses that use domains beginning with a digit. 3Com, for instance. - Logan
Re: 0451.com
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Hamish Marson wrote: > > The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and > be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's > purely numberic domains are illegal. No! Wrong! Totally wrong! If they were illegal they would never have been allocated. Duh. RFC 1123 section 2.1: The syntax of a legal Internet host name was specified in RFC-952 [DNS:4]. One aspect of host name syntax is hereby changed: the restriction on the first character is relaxed to allow either a letter or a digit. Host software MUST support this more liberal syntax. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ FISHER: WEST OR NORTHWEST 4 OR 5 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD.
Re: 0451.com
On Monday 07 August 2006 15:20, Obantec Support wrote: > What would 192.com or 118118.com do without these names? Deal with the fact that the RFCs don't support such names, and petition for a new RFC that accomodates their names? Other businesses have had no issues adapting to the requirements of the RFCs, so why they should be singled out, I don't know.
Re: 0451.com
- Original Message - From: "Hamish Marson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Duncan Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 3:11 PM Subject: Re: 0451.com > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Duncan Hill wrote: > > On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote: > >> | 2250 0733.com > > > >> Here are my numbers from last week: > >> > >> 5006 0451.com 3845 53.com > > > > Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal > > server: 440733.com 340451.com 110668.com 4 023.com > > 2 08.com 2 020.com 1 212.com 1 07770500.com 1 > > 01191.com 1 004.com > > > > However, the majority are already being rejected with my standard > > rules in Postfix (like don't accept mail from certain netblocks). > > I would have sworn there used to be a domain registration rule that > > said pure-numeric domains were illegal, but I'm not sure. > > The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and > be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's > purely numberic domains are illegal. > > (e.g. From RFC 1035) > > ::= | " " > > ::= | "." > > ::= [ [ ] ] > > ::= | > > ::= | "-" > > ::= | > > ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in > upper case and a through z in lower case > > ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9 > > > Seems clear to me... And since RFC1035 is still current, I'm not sure why > purely numeric domains are considered acceptable. (Apart from I can't > think > of a really good reason apart from pedanticness to stop them). > > Hamish, > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFE10oj/3QXwQQkZYwRAiq3AJ9aPoHZ7M6Bdmhf2E093xX8iOlCMACePBe8 > pgAwacs61+KKqglxUcMr9vs= > =kn09 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > What would 192.com or 118118.com do without these names? Mark
Re: 0451.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan Hill wrote: > On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote: >> | 2250 0733.com > >> Here are my numbers from last week: >> >> 5006 0451.com 3845 53.com > > Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal > server: 440733.com 340451.com 110668.com 4 023.com > 2 08.com 2 020.com 1 212.com 1 07770500.com 1 > 01191.com 1 004.com > > However, the majority are already being rejected with my standard > rules in Postfix (like don't accept mail from certain netblocks). > I would have sworn there used to be a domain registration rule that > said pure-numeric domains were illegal, but I'm not sure. The RFC's actually state that a domain MUST start with a letter, and be any letter or digit or hyphen after. So according to the RFC's purely numberic domains are illegal. (e.g. From RFC 1035) ::= | " " ::= | "." ::= [ [ ] ] ::= | ::= | "-" ::= | ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9 Seems clear to me... And since RFC1035 is still current, I'm not sure why purely numeric domains are considered acceptable. (Apart from I can't think of a really good reason apart from pedanticness to stop them). Hamish, -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE10oj/3QXwQQkZYwRAiq3AJ9aPoHZ7M6Bdmhf2E093xX8iOlCMACePBe8 pgAwacs61+KKqglxUcMr9vs= =kn09 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: 0451.com and blacklist domains
and not only them according to our daily sendmail logs: # egrep '@[0-9]+\.com' YESTERDAY | sed -e 's/^.*@//' -e 's/>.*$//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head 2484 0733.com 2449 0451.com 100 072.com 66 1039.com 52 006.com 51 0668.com 40 004.com 37 163.com 18 126.com 15 mail.0451.com Thanks for your lists. This leads me onto another point, are there any lists of domains which NEVER send out ham? I do block some domains such as: management-skills-uk.co.uk bahamasvacationdealweb.com which i have received a lot of spam from in the past but i don't know if they still do send spam. Obviously most spam comes from forged email addresses but if there was a list of forged domains which never send ham, i expect it would catch a significant proportion of spam. I don't want to block spammy domains like hanmail.net because i do get some ham from them as well which i can't block. Thanks, Ben
RE: 0451.com
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Sietse van Zanen wrote: OK than let's put this in another 'political' context: Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from those domains would be like caring for the few 'legitimate' bombs dropped over Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon. It would indeed be better to have no bombs at all -Sietse First off, STOP top-posting. Secondly, let's keeps the political contexts, views, and any other personal beliefs off of this technical mailing list. No, I am not saying this to express my beliefs on what you're talking about either way, this is no place for that type of discussion. If you want to talk politics or whether your take on any conflict is right, just, "leitimate", or whatever, then take it to a political discussion board and you can talk all day long. Now, back on topic please. -Gary From: Tony Finch on behalf of Tony Finch Sent: Mon 07-Aug-06 13:26 To: Sietse van Zanen Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: RE: 0451.com On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Sietse van Zanen wrote: Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from these domains would be like caring about the 'legitimate' claims of Bush saying he is a true christian... All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for people to deal with than alphabetic domains. For example, 263.com is China's second-largest ISP. You can't just assume that an all-numeric domain is necessarily abusive, any more so than Yahoo or Fastmail. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ FISHER: WEST OR NORTHWEST 4 OR 5 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD.
RE: 0451.com
I have a US customer with a numeric domain. Not sure why they did that (boy, did it muck up Microsoft NT!) Funny thing, when the spammers starting dictionary attacks, they do it in alphabetic order, so numeric domains get hit with spam first also.
RE: 0451.com
OK than let's put this in another 'political' context: Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from those domains would be like caring for the few 'legitimate' bombs dropped over Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon. It would indeed be better to have no bombs at all -Sietse From: Tony Finch on behalf of Tony Finch Sent: Mon 07-Aug-06 13:26 To: Sietse van Zanen Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: RE: 0451.com On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Sietse van Zanen wrote: > Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from these domains would be like > caring about the 'legitimate' claims of Bush saying he is a true > christian... All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for people to deal with than alphabetic domains. For example, 263.com is China's second-largest ISP. You can't just assume that an all-numeric domain is necessarily abusive, any more so than Yahoo or Fastmail. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ FISHER: WEST OR NORTHWEST 4 OR 5 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD.
Re: 0451.com
* Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for > people to deal with than alphabetic domains. For example, 263.com is > China's second-largest ISP. You can't just assume that an all-numeric > domain is necessarily abusive, any more so than Yahoo or Fastmail. Is there any meaning to "263" in Chinese? -- Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-BerlinFax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962 IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 0451.com
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Sietse van Zanen wrote: > Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from these domains would be like > caring about the 'legitimate' claims of Bush saying he is a true > christian... All-numeric domains are popular in China because they are easier for people to deal with than alphabetic domains. For example, 263.com is China's second-largest ISP. You can't just assume that an all-numeric domain is necessarily abusive, any more so than Yahoo or Fastmail. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ FISHER: WEST OR NORTHWEST 4 OR 5 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD.
RE: 0451.com
Caring about 'legitimate' e-mail coming from these domains would be like caring about the 'legitimate' claims of Bush saying he is a true christian... -Sietse From: Nigel Frankcom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 07-Aug-06 11:32 To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: 0451.com On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:21:41 +0100, Duncan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote: >> | 2250 0733.com > >> Here are my numbers from last week: >> >>5006 0451.com >>3845 53.com > >Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal server: >440733.com >340451.com >110668.com >4 023.com >2 08.com >2 020.com >1 212.com >1 07770500.com >1 01191.com >1 004.com > >However, the majority are already being rejected with my standard rules in >Postfix (like don't accept mail from certain netblocks). I would have sworn >there used to be a domain registration rule that said pure-numeric domains >were illegal, but I'm not sure. Daily stats for 0451.com... we are by no means a large mail operation. Pretty safe to say they don't send any legitimate mail out I think. DateCount 060701 = 146 060702 = 152 060703 = 121 060704 = 419 060705 = 479 060706 = 135 060707 = 81 060708 = 77 060709 = 48 060710 = 30 060711 = 270 060712 = 128 060713 = 53 060714 = 111 060715 = 56 060716 = 100 060717 = 74 060718 = 71 060719 = 103 060720 = 86 060721 = 186 060722 = 85 060723 = 107 060724 = 90 060725 = 15 060726 = 114 060727 = 86 060728 = 110 060729 = 103 060730 = 102 060731 = 117 060801 = 119 060802 = 63 060803 = 83 060804 = 153 060805 = 132 060806 = 149 Total = 4554
Re: 0451.com
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:21:41 +0100, Duncan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote: >> | 2250 0733.com > >> Here are my numbers from last week: >> >>5006 0451.com >>3845 53.com > >Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal server: >440733.com >340451.com >110668.com >4 023.com >2 08.com >2 020.com >1 212.com >1 07770500.com >1 01191.com >1 004.com > >However, the majority are already being rejected with my standard rules in >Postfix (like don't accept mail from certain netblocks). I would have sworn >there used to be a domain registration rule that said pure-numeric domains >were illegal, but I'm not sure. Daily stats for 0451.com... we are by no means a large mail operation. Pretty safe to say they don't send any legitimate mail out I think. DateCount 060701 = 146 060702 = 152 060703 = 121 060704 = 419 060705 = 479 060706 = 135 060707 = 81 060708 = 77 060709 = 48 060710 = 30 060711 = 270 060712 = 128 060713 = 53 060714 = 111 060715 = 56 060716 = 100 060717 = 74 060718 = 71 060719 = 103 060720 = 86 060721 = 186 060722 = 85 060723 = 107 060724 = 90 060725 = 15 060726 = 114 060727 = 86 060728 = 110 060729 = 103 060730 = 102 060731 = 117 060801 = 119 060802 = 63 060803 = 83 060804 = 153 060805 = 132 060806 = 149 Total = 4554
Re: 0451.com
On Monday 07 August 2006 00:02, wrote: > | 2250 0733.com > Here are my numbers from last week: > >5006 0451.com >3845 53.com Not seeing anywhere near as high, but this is only on my personal server: 440733.com 340451.com 110668.com 4 023.com 2 08.com 2 020.com 1 212.com 1 07770500.com 1 01191.com 1 004.com However, the majority are already being rejected with my standard rules in Postfix (like don't accept mail from certain netblocks). I would have sworn there used to be a domain registration rule that said pure-numeric domains were illegal, but I'm not sure.
Re: 0451.com
| 2250 0733.com | 1882 0451.com | 89 072.com | 62 006.com | 58 1039.com | 52 163.com | 32 0668.com | 31 004.com | 19 126.com | 13 mail.0451.com | | Panagiotis Here are my numbers from last week: 5006 0451.com 3845 53.com 2253 0733.com 440 mail.0451.com 204 006.com 146 004.com 133 61.187.98.10 118 08.com 101 072.com
Re: 0451.com
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Panagiotis Christias wrote: > and not only them according to our daily sendmail logs: > > 2484 0733.com > 2449 0451.com ...etc I've also seen 0541.com in my logs. -- John Hardin KA7OHZICQ#15735746http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED] key: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 --- Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) means that now you use your computer at the sufferance of Microsoft Corporation. They can kill it remotely without your consent at any time for any reason. ---
Re: 0451.com
and not only them according to our daily sendmail logs: # egrep '@[0-9]+\.com' YESTERDAY | sed -e 's/^.*@//' -e 's/>.*$//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head 2484 0733.com 2449 0451.com 100 072.com 66 1039.com 52 006.com 51 0668.com 40 004.com 37 163.com 18 126.com 15 mail.0451.com # egrep '@[0-9]+\.com' TODAY | sed -e 's/^.*@//' -e 's/>.*$//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head 2250 0733.com 1882 0451.com 89 072.com 62 006.com 58 1039.com 52 163.com 32 0668.com 31 004.com 19 126.com 13 mail.0451.com Panagiotis
Re: 0451.com
- Original Message - From: "Ben Wylie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:38 PM Subject: 0451.com > A question for those of you who have large databases of spam and ham to > check, do genuine emails come from the domain 0451.com or whether it is > genuinely just spam? > > I get a lot of spam claiming to be from emails on this domain, and if > there really are no genuine emails coming from that domain, i can > blacklist it. > > Thanks > Ben > > > Only ever seen spam from 0451.com so i have them discarded in my sendmail access.db Mark
Re: 0451.com
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:38:56 +0100, Ben Wylie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >A question for those of you who have large databases of spam and ham to >check, do genuine emails come from the domain 0451.com or whether it is >genuinely just spam? > >I get a lot of spam claiming to be from emails on this domain, and if >there really are no genuine emails coming from that domain, i can >blacklist it. > >Thanks >Ben If they ever do send out ham I've not seen it. I have them in my local blacklist and have done for a long time. None of my users has complained yet. YMMV Nigel
