On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:06:11 -0700, Paul wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ..true, but there are also those spammer isp's with clueless
> > wintendo users. These can be stopped with a bluescreen and a reboot
> > message asking them to take th
Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ..true, but there are also those spammer isp's with clueless wintendo
> users. These can be stopped with a bluescreen and a reboot message
> asking them to take their Wintendo box to the cops.
...which will get ignored along with all the rest of the adv
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:49:35 -0400, Alec wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> begin quotation of Arnt Karlsen:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:48:36 +0200, Christian wrote in message
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > not a trojan-winXP-desktop
> >
> > ..how does these act, one shot, or all
--On Wednesday, July 21, 2004 17:04 +1000 Russell Coker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is no solution, there are just many ways of alleviating the problem
for us while making more problems for spammers.
Russ, I'm not certain the world is big enough for TWO sane people! ;)
That's a round about
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:01:58AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Well, I'm also a debian developer, and I run stable on all my
> machines, with the exception of my development machine. (And use some
> backports from backports.org, namely spamassassin, clamav etc.)
Ditto for all my servers. I h
* Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040721 05:55]:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:41:54AM +0200, Philipp wrote:
> > 2) unstable is, as the debian developers put it, unstable.
>
> some do. most don't. in fact, most debian developers run unstable on most or
> all of their machines. i'm a debian d
> If you have to go through one 4xx messages to send a message then it
takes
> twice the network bandwidth to send a spam and more than twice the
effort
> (queues have to be maintained etc). If you were to require more than
one 4xx
> message and a longer time-out then it makes it even more work f
Citát Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Too many variables. Apache comes with "ab" (apache benchmark) - you
> can use it to do real-world testing to answer the question.
I have another question - what is the optimal max. keep-alive time? Because as I
can see from Apache's /server-status page on
> I have another question - what is the optimal max. keep-alive time?
Because as I
> can see from Apache's /server-status page on our server, there are
usually about
> 10-15 processes in state "S" (Sending Reply) and another 40-50 in "K"
> (keepalive). In have lowered this time from 15 seconds to
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 05:47, Michael Loftis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It won't work forever eventually spambots and virusbots will catch on
> and start retrying after being 4xx-ed but implementing it now makes you
> just harder than your neighbor to break into so for the time being they'll
> m
10 matches
Mail list logo
