This kind of dialog is important, because people find out what tools are
available. It's convinced me to give procmail/spamassassin a try (soon...) even
though I only get about 50 spam messages a day, easily and quickly deleted in
elm without hazard of super-smart virii or HTML scripts. I love h
Well, my bad on the reply without snippage.
I guess everyone has to choose for themselves how much filtering is
enough. If I have to delete it, that means it reached its destination.
Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:53:05PM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
See?
Hi,
I see a claim that glibc isn't vulnerable at:
http://www.kb.cert.org/CERT_WEB/vul-notes.nsf/id/AAMN-5BMSW2
Any comments?
(Sorry about breaking the thread -- I only just recently subscribed
and don't have the messages in this thread in my mailer)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 08:12:56AM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> Yeah, I still get a few false positives and have had to tweak things a
> bit (adding whitelist entries, etc.)
>
> Something strange has happened in the past few days, however. I
> started seeing messages that didn't appear to have gon
> Since I do not tolerate any level of spam I consider it immature to run a
> "professional mailing list" like debian security so that it can be abused
> by the most stupid script kiddie. Sorry but the impression I got so far
> is "semiprofessional". Cannot recommend it for use at work when people
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:53:05PM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> See? I don't know who configured 4.7 as threshold (should be 4.2, anyhow),
> but for my private purposes I consider 2.0 as the upper limit.
>
Here's a novel idea...
If hitting "D" (or whatever key your MUA uses) bothers y
## Florent Rougon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Christoph Moench-Tegeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's your fault if you don't filter on X-Spam-Status.
> FYI (sorry for the long line), it was:
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.3 required=4.7
See? I don't know who configured 4.7 as threshold (should be
Christoph Moench-Tegeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's your fault if you don't filter on X-Spam-Status.
FYI (sorry for the long line), it was:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.3 required=4.7
tests=SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,CLICK_BELOW,SUBJ_REMOVE,MAILTO_WITH_SUBJ,MAILTO_WITH_SUBJ_REMOVE,SUPERLONG_LINE,FREQ_SP
Phillip Hofmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:29:22PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>
>> No, it's a perfectly valid reason. Just because other admins do not
>> perfectly mirror your opinions does not mean that they are stupid. Not
>> only that, but there are a number of
## Mack Earnhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> These assholes are already in SpamCop's RBL. It would be nice to have a
> _little_ blocking.
It's your fault if you don't filter on X-Spam-Status.
And thank you very much for distributing that piece of spam one more
time, my procmailrc did catch it the f
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:29:22PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> No, it's a perfectly valid reason. Just because other admins do not
> perfectly mirror your opinions does not mean that they are stupid. Not only
> that, but there are a number of Debian users and developers that, for
> various reaso
Ironically enough, Rafael's server rejected my message for the sole reason
that Savvis broke reverse DNS for the colo facility my box is at 2 weeks ago
and has been slow to fix it. Shows you right away why these restrictions
are bad.
--
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:13:30PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
> > It sure will, but being this the security list, let's say someone
> > found a root crack in let's say, the inetd server. And their post
> > gets thrown out because no RR. Hmmm, no one gets warned and some
> > worm starts going around and
These assholes are already in SpamCop's RBL. It would be nice to have a
_little_ blocking.
-Mack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BOATERS, SWIMMERS, FISHERMEN, CANOEISTS, KAYAKERS---ALL WATERSPORTSMEN:
A MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH IN WATER SAFETY!
GET RID OF BULKY LIFE VESTS FOREVER---
The World's Most C
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:17:34AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:05:25AM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> > members of a list, should be able to post to the list...
> > even if they have broken rr and are listed ( incorrectly ) as
> > spammers...
> > member's only postin
I had this problem as well, but didn't need it bad enough until I started
reading this thread and decided to look into it more.
1: make sure /etc/ssh/sshd_config has Xforwarding enabled "yes"
2: make sure you have "xbase-clients" installed, it contains the xauth program.
3: run ssh with "-X" on
BOATERS, SWIMMERS, FISHERMEN, CANOEISTS, KAYAKERS---ALL WATERSPORTSMEN:
A MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH IN WATER SAFETY!
GET RID OF BULKY LIFE VESTS FOREVER---
The World's Most Compact Life Vest-"The Swimmer's Safety Belt ®" - First Ever
U.S. Coast Guard Approved Personal Flotation Device (PFD) for Boater
Previously Daniel Sw?rd wrote:
> I'm a complete novice when it comes to iptables, so I'm wondering if
> someone has a iptables-script which allows Kerberos, afs, ssh and ping.
> (it should of course disallow everything else...)
Try mason to build your firewall for you. If will look at what you do
Yeah, I still get a few false positives and have had to tweak things a
bit (adding whitelist entries, etc.)
Something strange has happened in the past few days, however. I
started seeing messages that didn't appear to have gone through
spamassassin at all. Some of these were obviously spam. In
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:30:52PM +0100, Tim Haynes wrote:
>
> Given that rfc-ignorant lists *.uk for not having contact info, would you
> like to refine that to `shite idea'?
That's in the whois.rfc-ignorant.org blacklist. That's not the list I
was talking about. And it is not rfc-ignorant's
Hi.
I'm a complete novice when it comes to iptables, so I'm wondering if
someone has a iptables-script which allows Kerberos, afs, ssh and ping.
(it should of course disallow everything else...)
/Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
"Noah L. Meyerhans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't agree with the policy of rejecting mail due to a lack of a
> reverse DNS entry. However, rfc-ignorant.org runs several nice
> blacklists, including ip-whois, which I subscribe to. This blacklist
> contains netblocks for which no valid whois
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:55:57PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
> Assuming the spam came from 213.181.64.226 it would be very easy to reject
> it based on the fact that there is no RR in DNS for that IP.
I don't agree with the policy of rejecting mail due to a lack of a
reverse DNS entry. However, rfc-i
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:05:25AM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> members of a list, should be able to post to the list...
> even if they have broken rr and are listed ( incorrectly ) as
> spammers...
> member's only posting will fix that ..
It sure will, but being this the security list, let
Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Don't do that please. There are a whole slew of ISPs that do not provide
> RR for some stupid little reason.
For addresses assigned by RIPE, all users of IP addresses have the right to
have reverse DNS if they want it. Does ARIN not have a similar poli
Bob Nielsen wrote:
> apt-get install spamassassin
>
> It trapped that one for me as well as 99% of the spam I receive.
AFAIK, mail addressed to the Debian lists are already filtered using
spamassassin, but it's a two years old version.
Kind listmaster, when will murphy (or the relevant machine) b
ipsec?
iptables
#ipsec rule for NETBIOS/SAMBA over the tunnel
iptables -A FORWARD -i ipsec0 -j ACCEPT
INPUT rules
#specific ipsec lines
iptables -A INPUT -s $lh_fwall -p udp --dport 500 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -s $lh_fwall -p 50 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -s $lh_fwall -p 51 -j ACCEPT
echo "
Hi Guys
I am setting up a firewall that needs to have
the functionality of forwarding vpn connections
to an internal masqueraded workstation.
At this point all I need is the port number and
protocol that VPN uses.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
..Craig
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 04:32:59PM -0700, Anne Carasik wrote:
| Hi Vineet,
|
| It doesn't matter--it's still does not work no matter what I do
| to my X server.
is your local routing working? i.e., can you ping localhost and
$(hostname)?
--
Michael Eyrich
* Quoting Alvin Oga ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> hi ya
>
> a silly question ... if spamassassin caught the spam,
> i assume it still received the spam and dumped it into a "rejected spam"
> folder ???
>
> i would rather see that the spam senders see a bounce email that
> fills up their boxes with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:18:16PM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
>> The Debian lists are deliberately not "subscriber only may post" on
>> the theory that it's better to press DEL than to prevent someone from
>>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm having really weird problem with X11 forwarding and two
> Debian boxes.
>
> I can login with OpenSSH and scp and everything else no
> problem.
>
> However, when I try to launch an xterm, I get either:
> can't open DISPLAY
>
> Or the display is set to server:10.0.
>
If DISPLAY=s
hi ya adam
most ISP will allow their clients to send outgoing email
thru their ( hopefully properly configured ) SMTP server
- so all your outgoing emails will have an RR associated with it
- problem is that galacticasoftware.com is gonna look like its
coming from mail1.foo_isp.net
On Tuesday, 2002-07-02 at 15:02:14 +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
> If I remember correctly, doesn't that require sendmail?
Doesn't here. I run it from procmail, which is invoked from postfix:
(In /etc/procmailrc:)
# Spamassasin
:0fw
| /usr/bin/spamc
My personal .procmailrc files supposed Spam in
Adam Majer écrivait :
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:55:57PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
> > Assuming the spam came from 213.181.64.226 it would be very easy to reject
> > it based on the fact that there is no RR in DNS for that IP.
>
> Don't do that please. There are a whole slew of ISPs that do not prov
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:55:57PM -0700, Rafael wrote:
>
> Email should never be accepted from poorly (or intensionaly baddly) setup
> servers that do not follow RFCs.
>
> by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
> id 17Ozil-0003W2-00; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 06:51:58 -0500
If I remember correctly, doesn't that require sendmail?
As for "bounce", while Kmail has that feature it does require a real reply-to
address. For the vast majority of spam, the reply-to is deliberately obfuscated.
> apt-get install spamassassin
>
> It trapped that one for me as well as 99% of
hi ya
a silly question ... if spamassassin caught the spam,
i assume it still received the spam and dumped it into a "rejected spam"
folder ???
i would rather see that the spam senders see a bounce email that
fills up their boxes with returned undeliverables..
- at least thats what i th
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:01:40PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> Rafael said:
..
>
> I believe that it's an intentional policy not to reject anything on the
> grounds that it _may_ be a valid poster, and guilty because of some minor
> configuration error should not mean automated l
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 02:18:16PM +0900, Howland, Curtis wrote:
> > What bothers me in all of this is that Debian lists are
> > managed so poorly
> > to let this happen.
>
> The Debian lists are deliberately not "subscriber only may post" on
> the theory that it's better to press DEL than to pre
> What bothers me in all of this is that Debian lists are
> managed so poorly
> to let this happen.
The Debian lists are deliberately not "subscriber only may post" on the theory
that it's better to press DEL than to prevent someone from posting.
However, "subscriber only" is a simple config op
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:01:40PM +1000, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> I believe that it's an intentional policy not to reject anything on the
> grounds that it _may_ be a valid poster, and guilty because of some minor
> configuration error should not mean automated lockout.
>
It would be nice if we low
Rafael said:
> What bothers me in all of this is that Debian lists are managed so
poorly
> to let this happen. I subscribed to 6 debian mailing lists recently,
> dropped two right away because there was so much spam I've never seen
> before. Today I received 8 messages related to that f*ng crap fro
43 matches
Mail list logo