On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:25:30 +, Dale Amon wrote:
>I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19
>
> emery
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:25:30 +, Dale Amon wrote:
>I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19
>
> emery
Hi all,
My first post here - long time d-u subscriber. I'm trying to set up a
VPN where WinXP roadwarriors can access a LAN that sits behind a Linux
router. I want to use X.509 certificates rather than PSKs.
So I've installed freeswan and l2tpd on the router. There is quite a
bit of documentat
Hi all,
My first post here - long time d-u subscriber. I'm trying to set up a
VPN where WinXP roadwarriors can access a LAN that sits behind a Linux
router. I want to use X.509 certificates rather than PSKs.
So I've installed freeswan and l2tpd on the router. There is quite a
bit of documentat
You may wish to enable an iptables filter to block all ports except
those you explicitly allow.
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 at 01:01:01PM -0500, outsider wrote:
> Hi,
> Last time I frequently get messages like
> "smbd[949]: refused connect from " in my /var/log/syslog. Every time
> with new IP-address. W
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:25:30PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.
Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
This method is especially effective in the case where the bayesian
classifier only looks at the first MIME attachment, because the second
is then free to contain whatever spam tokens they want to put in it.
IIRC, this is how most bayesian filters behave.
noah
I got s
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 07:01:01PM +0100, outsider wrote:
> Last time I frequently get messages like
> "smbd[949]: refused connect from " in my /var/log/syslog. Every time
> with new IP-address. What are these connections? Is somebody trying to
> scan me or what is the reason for these messages?
You may wish to enable an iptables filter to block all ports except
those you explicitly allow.
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 at 01:01:01PM -0500, outsider wrote:
> Hi,
> Last time I frequently get messages like
> "smbd[949]: refused connect from " in my /var/log/syslog. Every time
> with new IP-address. W
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:25:30PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.
Hi,
Last time I frequently get messages like
"smbd[949]: refused connect from " in my /var/log/syslog. Every time
with new IP-address. What are these connections? Is somebody trying to
scan me or what is the reason for these messages?
Thank you in advance!
Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
This method is especially effective in the case where the bayesian
classifier only looks at the first MIME attachment, because the second
is then free to contain whatever spam tokens they want to put in it.
IIRC, this is how most bayesian filters behave.
noah
I got such a
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 07:01:01PM +0100, outsider wrote:
> Last time I frequently get messages like
> "smbd[949]: refused connect from " in my /var/log/syslog. Every time
> with new IP-address. What are these connections? Is somebody trying to
> scan me or what is the reason for these messages?
Hi,
Last time I frequently get messages like
"smbd[949]: refused connect from " in my /var/log/syslog. Every time
with new IP-address. What are these connections? Is somebody trying to
scan me or what is the reason for these messages?
Thank you in advance!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:36:20PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> > I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> > quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
>
> I can't think of any other reason for someone to do it
> though. There has to be a point. Someone is g
> One technique that's being used a lot is to get books in electronic form
and
> put a coupld of sentences in every spam (sentences from a book will pass
> gramatical checking etc, unlike the example you posted above). Also
text
> from a book will have the right ratio of words, you will almost nev
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:36:20PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> > I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> > quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
>
> I can't think of any other reason for someone to do it
> though. There has to be a point. Someone is g
Incoming from Adeodato Sim?:
> * s. keeling [Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:52:30 -0700]:
>
> > With help from one of the list recipients, this is now verified and
> > reproducible. Something between me and those people whose keys are
> > determined by my copy of gpg to be "Bad signature", is mangling mail.
Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can only assume someone out there is trying to attack
> bayesian systems by loading them up with all sorts of
> normal words so that good mail gets false positives, thus
> breaking the systems.
I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though
> One technique that's being used a lot is to get books in electronic form
and
> put a coupld of sentences in every spam (sentences from a book will pass
> gramatical checking etc, unlike the example you posted above). Also
text
> from a book will have the right ratio of words, you will almost nev
Incoming from Adeodato Sim?:
> * s. keeling [Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:52:30 -0700]:
>
> > With help from one of the list recipients, this is now verified and
> > reproducible. Something between me and those people whose keys are
> > determined by my copy of gpg to be "Bad signature", is mangling mail.
Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can only assume someone out there is trying to attack
> bayesian systems by loading them up with all sorts of
> normal words so that good mail gets false positives, thus
> breaking the systems.
I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though
This discussion has some minor relevance to debian-isp, but nothing to do with
debian-security. Let's move the discussion to debian-isp.
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:25, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> emery atrocious larval drippy elate
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:25:30PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.1
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:32:23PM +, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
I can't think of any other reason for someone to do it
though. There has to be a point. Someone is going t
I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19
emery atrocious larval drippy elate incontrollable raster anglicanis
This discussion has some minor relevance to debian-isp, but nothing to do with
debian-security. Let's move the discussion to debian-isp.
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:25, Dale Amon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> emery atrocious larval drippy elate
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:25:30PM +, Dale Amon wrote:
> I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
> From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.1
On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 01:32:23PM +, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> I have yet to see a false positive caused by this even though I get
> quite a lot of this stuff and routinely mark it as spam.
I can't think of any other reason for someone to do it
though. There has to be a point. Someone is going t
I've been noticing loads of mails like this lately:
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:25:34 +0500
From: "Joseph Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MIT, rest in peace!
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19
emery atrocious larval drippy elate incontrollable raster anglicanis
* s. keeling [Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:52:30 -0700]:
> With help from one of the list recipients, this is now verified and
> reproducible. Something between me and those people whose keys are
> determined by my copy of gpg to be "Bad signature", is mangling mail.
> Specifically, that something is fixi
* s. keeling [Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:52:30 -0700]:
> With help from one of the list recipients, this is now verified and
> reproducible. Something between me and those people whose keys are
> determined by my copy of gpg to be "Bad signature", is mangling mail.
> Specifically, that something is fixi
Incoming from s. keeling:
> Incoming from Thomas Sj?gren:
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 12:35:49PM -0700, s. keeling wrote:
> > > > >gpg: Signature made Sun Dec 21 17:50:12 2003 MST using DSA key ID
> > > > >946886AE
> > > > >gpg: BAD signature from "Trey Sizemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
> > >
> > > N
33 matches
Mail list logo