-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:56, Raymond Wood wrote:
> Someone else mentioned that one should also remove the Debian
> 'unsubscribe' line at the end of the offending email. Since
> this is more work than simply forwarding the email unchanged to
> Razor, ca
On 2002/12/02 11:23:11PM -0500, Mon, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> All,
>
> Please do not have your procmail or anything else automatically mark
> mail sent from debian's list as spam. Several valid emails have ended
> up in my "Junk" folder because someone is reporting them to razor. Once
> again
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:23:11PM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister imagined:
> All,
>
> Please do not have your procmail or anything else
> automatically mark mail sent from debian's list as spam.
> Several valid emails have ended up in my "Junk" folder because
> someone is reporting them to razor. Onc
All,
Please do not have your procmail or anything else automatically mark
mail sent from debian's list as spam. Several valid emails have ended
up in my "Junk" folder because someone is reporting them to razor. Once
again, please manually report emails to razor as whatever filtering
method you a
> "Sven" == IT <- Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
[...]
>> Scenario 1.
>>
>> You are a debian user, but you don't subscribe to any debian lists.
>> Suddenly you suspect you have a security issue. You immediately dash
>> off an email to the debian-security list hoping someone ther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:56, Raymond Wood wrote:
> Someone else mentioned that one should also remove the Debian
> 'unsubscribe' line at the end of the offending email. Since
> this is more work than simply forwarding the email unchanged to
> Razor, ca
On 2002/12/02 11:23:11PM -0500, Mon, Phillip Hofmeister wrote:
> All,
>
> Please do not have your procmail or anything else automatically mark
> mail sent from debian's list as spam. Several valid emails have ended
> up in my "Junk" folder because someone is reporting them to razor. Once
> again
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:23:11PM -0500, Phillip Hofmeister imagined:
> All,
>
> Please do not have your procmail or anything else
> automatically mark mail sent from debian's list as spam.
> Several valid emails have ended up in my "Junk" folder because
> someone is reporting them to razor. Onc
All,
Please do not have your procmail or anything else automatically mark
mail sent from debian's list as spam. Several valid emails have ended
up in my "Junk" folder because someone is reporting them to razor. Once
again, please manually report emails to razor as whatever filtering
method you a
> "Sven" == IT <- Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
[...]
>> Scenario 1.
>>
>> You are a debian user, but you don't subscribe to any debian lists.
>> Suddenly you suspect you have a security issue. You immediately dash
>> off an email to the debian-security list hoping someone ther
Raymond Wood wrote:
> Alright, based on what you say then, I will assume that it is
> fine to *manually* forward obvious Spams received via the debian
> lists to Razor via the 'spamassassin -r' command. I only report
> the definite Spams that are not already being caught by
> Spamassassin.
>
> If
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:52:27PM +0100, Kjetil Kjernsmo remarked:
> On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> > OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to
> > Razor; rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting
> > legitimate email as Spam to Razor?
> Right! And,
Kjetil Kjernsmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Aside: I do that by having a line href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> in many web pages, and that
> works excellently, this address is harvested and spammed, and when that
> happens, the intention is that subsequent mail is stopped. This markup
> may no
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to Razor;
> rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting legitimate
> email as Spam to Razor?
Right! And, if they are not spammers who do this (see my other mail),
then it might well
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:11:41AM -0600, Nathan E Norman remarked:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Raymond Wood wrote:
> > This makes sense to me, so I can accept the Spam I receive
> > through the debian lists. One thing I'm still unclear about
> > though is the recent post from som
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:11, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> Some people[1] report non-spam as spam to razor. For example,
> several security announcements from Debian have found their way into
> the razor database. This is obviously stupid.
>
> [1] At least, we think they are people, but the leve
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Raymond Wood wrote:
> This makes sense to me, so I can accept the Spam I receive
> through the debian lists. One thing I'm still unclear about
> though is the recent post from someone who requested that people
> *not* report Spam received through the debia
Raymond Wood wrote:
> Alright, based on what you say then, I will assume that it is
> fine to *manually* forward obvious Spams received via the debian
> lists to Razor via the 'spamassassin -r' command. I only report
> the definite Spams that are not already being caught by
> Spamassassin.
>
> If
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:37:54PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller remarked:
> On Monday 02 December 2002 16:43, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> > > However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of
> > > users is allowed to post here.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 02 December 2002 16:43, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> > However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of users is allowed
> > to post here. A pointer to a previous discussi
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:52:27PM +0100, Kjetil Kjernsmo remarked:
> On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> > OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to
> > Razor; rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting
> > legitimate email as Spam to Razor?
> Right! And,
Kjetil Kjernsmo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Aside: I do that by having a line href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";> in many web pages, and that
> works excellently, this address is harvested and spammed, and when that
> happens, the intention is that subsequent mail is stopped. This markup
> may n
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:54:34PM +0100, "Janßen, Dirk" wrote:
> Ich bin erst am 03.12.2002 wieder im Haus. Bei dringenden dienstlichen
> Angelegenheiten wenden Sie sich bitte an Herrn Igor Spanz
> (mailto:), Tel. -368.
> ===
> I am absent ti
Ports 135-139 (and I think 445) are Netbios ports.
Port 113 is auth/identd.
IMHO, it makes sense to not let these in through your
firewall.
-Anne
jjj3 grabbed a keyboard and typed...
>
> Ok, but if the port is 137 is that a problem?
>
> jjj3
>
> Andy Coates writes:
>
> > > Hi All,
> > >
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:25, Raymond Wood wrote:
> OK, so the problem is not with reporting genuine Spam to Razor;
> rather the problem is with incorrectly reporting legitimate
> email as Spam to Razor?
Right! And, if they are not spammers who do this (see my other mail),
then it might well
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of users is allowed to
> post here. A pointer to a previous discussion would be enough for me, but I
> couldn't find one in the archives (maybe I'm using the wrong keywords in
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:11:41AM -0600, Nathan E Norman remarked:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Raymond Wood wrote:
> > This makes sense to me, so I can accept the Spam I receive
> > through the debian lists. One thing I'm still unclear about
> > though is the recent post from som
On Monday 02 December 2002 18:11, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> Some people[1] report non-spam as spam to razor. For example,
> several security announcements from Debian have found their way into
> the razor database. This is obviously stupid.
>
> [1] At least, we think they are people, but the leve
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Raymond Wood wrote:
> This makes sense to me, so I can accept the Spam I receive
> through the debian lists. One thing I'm still unclear about
> though is the recent post from someone who requested that people
> *not* report Spam received through the debia
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 05:37:54PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller remarked:
> On Monday 02 December 2002 16:43, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> > > However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of
> > > users is allowed to post here.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 02 December 2002 16:43, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> > However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of users is allowed
> > to post here. A pointer to a previous discussi
I have got exactly the same problem as this one:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-isp/2002/debian-isp-200204/msg00192.html
Just like the case in the message, my box crash a few hours after
getting those error message.
Could that be a hardware problem or kernel bugs?
What should I do now?
On Tuesday 26 November 2002 23:48, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
[why non-subscribed users are allowed to post to the list is a FAQ, but
there is no compiled FAQ on this list which covers that question]
> > > No need to dredge up an old topic. However, I could
> > > not find a FAQ for t
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 02:59:32PM +0100, Mathieu Laurent wrote:
> It 's not the error messages when logrotate reload apache config. I have
> this problem after a request.
>
> I have two webserver with the same config. And I can see that the two
> servers receive this request and one of them die
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:54:34PM +0100, "Janßen, Dirk" wrote:
> Ich bin erst am 03.12.2002 wieder im Haus. Bei dringenden dienstlichen
> Angelegenheiten wenden Sie sich bitte an Herrn Igor Spanz
> (mailto:), Tel. -368.
> ===
> I am absent ti
Ports 135-139 (and I think 445) are Netbios ports.
Port 113 is auth/identd.
IMHO, it makes sense to not let these in through your
firewall.
-Anne
jjj3 grabbed a keyboard and typed...
>
> Ok, but if the port is 137 is that a problem?
>
> jjj3
>
> Andy Coates writes:
>
> > > Hi All,
> > >
It 's not the error messages when logrotate reload apache config. I have
this problem after a request.
I have two webserver with the same config. And I can see that the two
servers receive this request and one of them died after.
I see on the mails in this discussion (
http://lists.debian.or
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:21:28PM +0100, IT - Sven Mueller wrote:
> However, I am not really able to tell why this kind of users is allowed to
> post here. A pointer to a previous discussion would be enough for me, but I
> couldn't find one in the archives (maybe I'm using the wrong keywords in
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:26:12PM +0100, Mathieu Laurent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My webserver with apache (+ mod_ssl) failed when I receive a worms attack.
>
> I see this message in the error log: [error] [client xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]
> client sent HTTP/1.1 request without hostname (see RFC2616 section 14.
I have got exactly the same problem as this one:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-isp/2002/debian-isp-200204/msg00192.html
Just like the case in the message, my box crash a few hours after
getting those error message.
Could that be a hardware problem or kernel bugs?
What should I do now?
--
To
On Tuesday 26 November 2002 23:48, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
[why non-subscribed users are allowed to post to the list is a FAQ, but
there is no compiled FAQ on this list which covers that question]
> > > No need to dredge up an old topic. However, I could
> > > not find a FAQ for t
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 02:59:32PM +0100, Mathieu Laurent wrote:
> It 's not the error messages when logrotate reload apache config. I have
> this problem after a request.
>
> I have two webserver with the same config. And I can see that the two
> servers receive this request and one of them die
It 's not the error messages when logrotate reload apache config. I have
this problem after a request.
I have two webserver with the same config. And I can see that the two
servers receive this request and one of them died after.
I see on the mails in this discussion (
http://lists.debian.org/
* jjj3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Logs in my firewall shows me incoming connections to port 113 of the
> firewall!! What it means?
You might want to have a look at RFC 1413. Port 113 belongs to the auth
protocol. Somei Mail- and IRC-Servers connect to this port if you use
their Service.
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:26:12PM +0100, Mathieu Laurent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My webserver with apache (+ mod_ssl) failed when I receive a worms attack.
>
> I see this message in the error log: [error] [client xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]
> client sent HTTP/1.1 request without hostname (see RFC2616 section 14.
Hi,
My webserver with apache (+ mod_ssl) failed when I receive a worms attack.
I see this message in the error log: [error] [client xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]
client sent HTTP/1.1 request without hostname (see RFC2616 section 14.23): /
The father process of apache was killed.
I have the last security
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:13:28AM -, Andy Coates wrote:
>
> Netbios related probes I think (windows machines). If you don't have
> any win machines, ignore it.
>
> Easiest place for these sort of queries is google - plenty of people ask
> the same type of questions.
>
Better yet:
Netbios related probes I think (windows machines). If you don't have
any win machines, ignore it.
Easiest place for these sort of queries is google - plenty of people ask
the same type of questions.
Andy.
> Ok, but if the port is 137 is that a problem?
>
> jjj3
>
> Andy Coates writes:
>
Ok, but if the port is 137 is that a problem?
jjj3
Andy Coates writes:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Logs in my firewall shows me incoming connections to port 113 of the
> > firewall!! What it means?
>
> Some service you or your computer is connecting to is checking your
> ident. Disable the ident
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 10:55:28AM +, jjj3 wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Logs in my firewall shows me incoming connections to port 113 of the
> firewall!! What it means?
>
start here!!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=port+113&meta=site%3Dgroups
--
Easter-eggsSp
> Hi All,
>
> Logs in my firewall shows me incoming connections to port 113 of the
> firewall!! What it means?
Some service you or your computer is connecting to is checking your
ident. Disable the identd daemon or comment out the entry in inetd.conf
if you do it that way.
Usually happens when
Hi All,
Logs in my firewall shows me incoming connections to port 113 of the
firewall!! What it means?
tks all in advance!
jjj3
* jjj3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Logs in my firewall shows me incoming connections to port 113 of the
> firewall!! What it means?
You might want to have a look at RFC 1413. Port 113 belongs to the auth
protocol. Somei Mail- and IRC-Servers connect to this port if you use
their Service.
--
To UN
Hi,
My webserver with apache (+ mod_ssl) failed when I receive a worms attack.
I see this message in the error log: [error] [client xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]
client sent HTTP/1.1 request without hostname (see RFC2616 section 14.23): /
The father process of apache was killed.
I have the last security pa
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:13:28AM -, Andy Coates wrote:
>
> Netbios related probes I think (windows machines). If you don't have
> any win machines, ignore it.
>
> Easiest place for these sort of queries is google - plenty of people ask
> the same type of questions.
>
Better yet:
Netbios related probes I think (windows machines). If you don't have
any win machines, ignore it.
Easiest place for these sort of queries is google - plenty of people ask
the same type of questions.
Andy.
> Ok, but if the port is 137 is that a problem?
>
> jjj3
>
> Andy Coates writes:
>
Ok, but if the port is 137 is that a problem?
jjj3
Andy Coates writes:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Logs in my firewall shows me incoming connections to port 113 of the
> > firewall!! What it means?
>
> Some service you or your computer is connecting to is checking your
> ident. Disable the ident
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 10:55:28AM +, jjj3 wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Logs in my firewall shows me incoming connections to port 113 of the
> firewall!! What it means?
>
start here!!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=port+113&meta=site%3Dgroups
--
Easter-eggsSp
> Hi All,
>
> Logs in my firewall shows me incoming connections to port 113 of the
> firewall!! What it means?
Some service you or your computer is connecting to is checking your
ident. Disable the identd daemon or comment out the entry in inetd.conf
if you do it that way.
Usually happens when
Hi All,
Logs in my firewall shows me incoming connections to port 113 of the
firewall!! What it means?
tks all in advance!
jjj3
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
60 matches
Mail list logo
