On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:37:32 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Actually, yes, I do. The email address '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' goes
to REAL PEOPLE who really read the complaints and do something about them
(as far as I can tell). I hope I don't lose my complaint privileges for
having posted that
On Wed, February 6, 2008 18:40, Paul Schmehl wrote:
BTW, privately I was informed that the *real* address is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What happened to first.org, is this a reliable source of information for
stuff like this?
Yahoo Incident Response Division
http://www.first.org/members/teams/yird/
C.
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:40:06AM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote:
They're also the first mail server I've ever connected to that won't accept
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and insists on [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead. So, I'm not
surprised to find that they 250 everything you type in.
I guess RFCs are even more
--On Thursday, February 07, 2008 15:12:17 +0100 Christian Kujau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, February 6, 2008 18:40, Paul Schmehl wrote:
BTW, privately I was informed that the *real* address is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What happened to first.org, is this a reliable source of information for
Their abuse policy of course!
Last week a client's server was being attacked (some old Tomcat5 vuln)
and used to attack other servers (ssh login guessing). The results of
these dictionary attack were being mailed to the address
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]':
cat vuln.txt |mail -s Lame Gang Us Roots
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think the adress is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cheers
Ferdinand from Germany
Am 06.02.2008 um 11:58 schrieb Vincent van Scherpenseel:
Their abuse policy of course!
Last week a client's server was being attacked (some old Tomcat5 vuln)
and used to
--On Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:58:31 +0100 Vincent van Scherpenseel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, what do you do when you want to report something like this? In fact
I'm doing them a favor by reporting but all I got is this lousy
response. I'll have to think twice about reporting
--On Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:25:19 -0500 Harry Hoffman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You just need to take it a step further :-)
...
rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 recipient [EMAIL PROTECTED] ok
data
354 go ahead
Testing
.
554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:44:10 CST, Paul Schmehl said:
RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 recipient [EMAIL PROTECTED] ok
% telnet f.mx.mail.yahoo.com 25
...
rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 recipient [EMAIL PROTECTED] ok
Yee. Hah. They 250 for a probably-nonexistent account (unless that
one actually
You just need to take it a step further :-)
...
rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
250 recipient [EMAIL PROTECTED] ok
data
354 go ahead
Testing
.
554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [0] -
mta367.mail.mud.yahoo.com
421 Service not available, closing
On Feb 6, 2008 5:40 PM, Paul Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, privately I was informed that the *real* address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Who knew.
everyone knew...
http://security.yahoo.com
http://security.yahoo.com/all_topics.html
Sadly, it seems that more and more mail servers are RFC-apathetic :-(
And the admins even more so... It almost seems the larger the company
the less likely to follow RFCs (IME).
There there's people like spamcop who think that RFCs are ok for some
things but not for others :-(
/sigh
--Harry
Salut, Harry,
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:22:10 -0500, Harry Hoffman wrote:
Sadly, it seems that more and more mail servers are RFC-apathetic :-(
And the admins even more so... It almost seems the larger the company
the less likely to follow RFCs (IME).
There there's people like spamcop who
13 matches
Mail list logo
