DFS wrote on 01/26/2017 09:12:51 AM:
> A blanket block of .js would really annoy web developers who seem to
mail
> around zip files of projects (yeah, yeah, this "git" nonsense will never
> catch on...)
Git outta here!! (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
Even Google recommends using a file sharing
From: Jon Rowlan jon.row...@sads.com
I want to selectively use SPF for some domains and not others for the
purposes of the functionality that SPF offers. I want to tune this
depending on the client domain.
Then test for the domain name and if they want SPF test, run them. If
not, skip
Les wrote on 04/23/2014 11:01:22 AM:
So, is it time for mailing lists to rewrite the From: header? I've
always preferred ones that supply a Reply-To: back to the list so
people don't accidentally answer off-list anyway, but I know there are
arguments on the other side.
That seems to be
Les wrote on 04/23/2014 12:29:40 PM:
That's ummm, interesting, that you can't see their example format
without a login. But it looks like they want to rewrite the
Reply-To: as the original sender which seems very wrong, at least for
technical lists where most posters would never want to
DFS wrote on 03/20/2014 03:04:07 PM:
Post-Cisco, ClamAV seems to have greatly declined in usefulness.
It catches hardly anything anymore... anyone else experiencing this?
In my experience, most of the commercial AV scanners for Linux are
horrible.
They often use undocumented wire protocols
Jon wrote on 02/25/2014 04:15:31 AM:
I use sendmail/md/sa/clam to test for inbound, I actually don't know
whether any checks are performed on the outgoing by this combination of
systems, I would have thought that some check are made on mail going out
as well as in.
The systems relaying are
Kevin wrote on 11/05/2013 01:30:17 PM:
3 - Has anyone written description of all the extensions and a short
what/why description? If not, I'll take a pass at it. (example below).
Microsoft has a partial list at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/291369
Confidentiality Notice:
This
Better list at
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook-help/blocked-attachments-in-outlook-HA001229952.aspx
--
William Brown
Core Hosted Application Technical Team and Messaging Team
Technology Services, WNYRIC, Erie 1 BOCES
(716) 821-7285
Confidentiality Notice:
This electronic
From: Renaud Pascal renaud.pas...@atos.net
well, after all wasn't SPF an idea from Microsoft, a gang of squares
thinking they're geeks...
No, that was CallerID, later SenderID. SPF was from Meng Wong at
POBOX.com, based on the work of others. The MARID working group tried to
merge SenderID
DFS wrote on 12/17/2012 03:00:33 PM:
(I'm tempted to go further and
say that such a policy-maker exemplifies the Peter Principle but I
won't... darn! Too late!)
Or maybe s/he hasn't quite reached their ultimate level according the
Dilbert Principle.
Confidentiality Notice:
This
DFS wrote on 08/18/2012 04:34:20 PM:
Sure, x.y.z.10.in-addr.arpa probably does hit the root name servers
pretty
often.
Yes it does. http://public.as112.net/node/6
Confidentiality Notice:
This electronic message and any attachments may contain confidential or
privileged information, and
Nate wrote on 08/17/2012 05:29:51 AM:
Is it generally accepted as being ok to directly contact the other
servers email administrator in order to try to resolve an undelivered
email? I am finding myself being berated by the other systems admin for
my unconventional methods in trying to
Ben wrote on 08/17/2012 12:39:45 PM:
Not a whole lot you can do for them.
Lately, my attitude runs towards Just because you can install Exchange
doesn't mean you know what you're doing.
Confidentiality Notice:
This electronic message and any attachments may contain confidential or
Ben wrote on 08/17/2012 01:07:46 PM:
And I've run into those types...
They're scary.
And they tend to resent when you point out their problems.
Confidentiality Notice:
This electronic message and any attachments may contain confidential or
privileged information, and is intended only
Jon wrote on 08/17/2012 01:41:15 PM:
As I run exchange and sendmail/MD systems I thought I would see why the
exchange bods were being bashed again ...
Running exchange is not proof you don't know what you're doing, but not
knowing how to run a mail system seems to correlate closely with
Ben wrote on 08/17/2012 02:58:05 PM:
I had an official internet email address in 1989 when I was on GEnie
Information Services. I was bka...@genie.geis.com
According to the grasshopper book, RFCs 882 and 883 were released in 1984,
which defined DNS, which replaced a centrally managed
Mike wrote on 02/10/2012 12:23:52 PM:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:49:39 -0500
David F. Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com wrote:
Do they all have message IDs starting CHILKAT-MID?
That appears to be the format of a Message-ID inserted by legitimate
software, so it was probably a coincidence.
Michael wrote on 02/09/2012 12:20:46 PM:
We had a compromised account doing this last weekend! CanIt caught a
few of the outgoing messages, and I soon blocked the account. The email
were initially all going to a single gmail and a single ebay account.
Later messages (all blocked)
servings...@gmail.com wrote on 10/24/2011 12:23:14 PM:
By the way, the footer now is not an attachment but the unsubscribe
link in the footer is not clickable.
_I wonder if there is a solution for the link?_
This is likely to be a feature/function of your mail client to take URLs
and turn
DFS wrote on 09/08/2011 02:07:17 PM:
I just had to do the phishing song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccIzZS_wD6U
Now I need a new keyboard after spewing Mt Dew on it. I should have known
better than to drink and watch an RPSTV production.
Confidentiality Notice:
This electronic
Todd wrote on 08/25/2011 09:42:19 AM:
Thanks also for the information about multiple From addresses... in the
15+ years I've been in IT and managing email, I'd never seen messages
with
multiple From addresses before.
I recall discussions either here or on some other list where spammers were
DFS wrote on 02/25/2010 09:06:56 AM:
Oh, dear. It's probably a Perl bug that's triggered by some peculiarity
of your filter or one of your Perl modules.
Googling for panic: top_env yields little enlightenment other than
It's probably a Perl bug. :(
Mastering Regular Expressions (O'Reilly)
Hadi on 02/22/2010 11:04:46 AM:
before upgrade there's any fix for this meanwhile?
Did it work before? If so what changed? Does the socket exits? What do
you get if you try ls -l /var/spool/MIMEDefang/mimedefang.sock? Are the
permissions correct?
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic
Hadi wrote on 02/22/2010 12:10:29 PM:
Here is the permission
bash-2.05$ ls -ld /var/spool/MIMEDefang/mimedefang.sock
srwxr-x--- 1 defang nobody 0 Feb 22 09:46 /var/spool/
MIMEDefang/mimedefang.sock
Its right or wrong
Did it work before? If so what changed? Does the socket
DFS wrote on 02/12/2010 06:54:27 PM:
I must confess, I've never understood people who administer Linux
servers,
yet don't run a Linux desktop. Heck, run Linux in VMWare if you must,
but at least use proper desktop tools to administer a Linux server.
When I first started using Linux for
Cliff wrote on 01/22/2010 05:42:34 PM:
I sent an internal test and it got blocked by clamd as expected.
I sent an external test and it sailed right through undetected. So now
I'm
confused :(
Is your external address whitelisted or otherwise not being processed w/
the same rules as the
Cool!
Now just set the text of the message to tell you that clam failed and it is
time to panic. :)
--
William Brown
Web Development Messaging Services
Technology Services, WNYRIC, Erie 1 BOCES
Cliff Hayes cha...@afo.net wrote on 01/25/2010 03:24:34 PM:
From: Cliff Hayes cha...@afo.net
Cliff wrote on 01/22/2010 03:14:19 PM:
One thing I would like to add to this list is a way to verify clamd is
still
checking emails.
How about automatically sending an email with the EICAR test virus through
the system on a regular schedule. If it ever shows up in your inbox, you
would know
Kelson wrote on 01/14/2010 02:43:35 PM:
It's not the effect that's at issue, it's the process.
The whole point of a honeypot is that you have a guarantee that no one
has ever requested that mail go to that address, so any mail sent there
is unsolicited by definition.
If you subscribe an
Joseph Brennan wrote on 11/24/2009 03:58:08 PM:
There are mailing list products that send to 1 recipient per message
and close the connection after each one. They don't pipeline when
running a queue either. I think the products run their own queue
instead of handing it off to a sane MTA.
I've seen a few messages recently, mostly from Google mail, that are
unusual in that there is no obvious reason for them. No sales pitch, link
or malware attached. The headers indicate it was a legit gmail message.
This is the latest received:
Hi Sir/Madam,
Have a nice Day.
A colleague quoted in an email email spam from web crawlers is a problem
for you and your IT department, obfuscating email addresses on your website
turns your problem into a problem for your users.
Has anyone seen this or something similar? The original question posed to
him was about making
Les wrote on 06/09/2009 01:59:38 PM:
And unless you expect messages with a large number of recipients you can
refuse to accept them without running any perl code:
define(`confMAX_RCPTS_PER_MESSAGE',`5')dnl
'Real' senders are supposed to figure this out and resend but I don't
know how it
Kenneth Porter wrote on 03/28/2009 02:41:35 PM:
Is it feasible to write a new message standard to replace 2822, with all
MUSTS, and something like HTML's doctype strict to declare that the
message
either meets the standard or is rejectable?
I'm sure it could be written. Getting it
Kevin wrote on 02/24/2009 02:16:38 PM:
Recommending that people disable JavaScript in Adobe I believe is the
only
current course of action other than blocking PDFs which will likely cause
people wth pitchforks and torches to storm the IT Castle.
Blocking PDF's is not going to be popular.
Looks like ClamAvV has added definitions for some PDF vulnerabilities
today:
http://lurker.clamav.net/message/20090224.162205.44ab94c8.en.html
--
May you solve interesting problems
William Brown
Web Development Messaging Services
Technology Services, WNYRIC, Erie 1 BOCES
(716)821-7285
DFS wrote on 02/20/2009 03:08:06 PM:
So, if I substitute a period for the @ do a DNS query for
C71C5F34D3FD4A82861FD18EEF700959.peregrinehw.com, their nameserver
could
return a coded response that message did indeed originate from that
server.
The Message-ID values would need to be kept
Ernst edupl...@gmail.com wrote on 02/05/2009 04:45:19 AM:
I can't agree more. It is absolutely ridiculous to add disclaimers to
e-mail. I however understand Gibson's problem since he is from South
Africa. The South African government requires by law that all e-mail
messages originating
DFS wrote on 02/05/2009 11:30:59 AM:
I wonder if the ZA government anticipated silliness like this?
http://www.pioneerfoods.co.za/downloads/pdf/email_disclaimer.pdf
Or how the folks at
http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Corporate_Information-10.phtml (who claim This
e-mail legal notice shall at all
Volume 50 of jgc's spam and antispam newsletter had a link for Nolisting,
Poor Man's Greylisting at
http://www.joreybump.com/code/howto/nolisting.html .
Basically, the premise is set an MX with a high preference pointing to a
system that does not listen on port 25. Broken mailers would
Les wrote on 01/31/2007 03:52:58 PM:
Is 'your' queue better than everyone else's? Why not do a 4xx tmpfail
if your address check temporarily fails? Any real MTA should be
prepared to queue and retry.
Why bother even having a backup MX if all it will do is return a 4xx? Why
not let the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/29/2007 05:53:01
PM:
I'm not even that sure it would help the spam problem. The majority
of the spam I receive these days come via ISP mail servers or open
relays. This may of course simply mean that I'm not receiving a
normal pattern of spam...
I don't think
Since the receiving end user is the one initiating the complaint (to their
ISP), they are the one that should provide the offending email, including
all headers. Without it, their ISP should decline to procede any further.
No on need violate anyone privacy.
---
The Vista Content Protection
John Rudd wrote on 01/22/2007 06:17:48 PM:
As many as you can fit. But I would be very careful about it. Plus, I
would make sure to use \b around the words, so that you're not getting
sub-string matches. For example:
\bsex\b will match sex but not match Wesex.
I can't second this
You can probably think of more examples.
I always liked the example of the town of Scunthorpe in the UK. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_Problem
My wife used have problems with Hiscock being part of her employer's
domain name.
___
Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/17/2007 06:25:29 PM:
Which is why the scanner should run as a milter so it can inform the MTA
what to do at the appropriate time.
Does anyone know of other commercial spam filters besides CanIt that are
milter based or at least operate during the
John Rudd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/17/2007 07:11:51 PM:
Dropping without notifying _anyone_ is an even worse practice. You
don't have to notify the sender, as long as you notify the recipient
(and visa versa).
Which is just another piece of annoying email in the inbox. Why bother
DFS wrote on 01/18/2007 09:21:32 AM:
(My marketing people will kill me for mentioning competitors...)
No doubt, but your openess is appreciated!
Two big ones come to mind: Brightmail and PureMessage. Also, some
outsourced solutions like Postini and MessageLabs seem to do at least
some
Jan-Pieter Cornet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/16/2007 05:20:44 PM:
http://www.acme.com/mail_filtering/sendmail_config_frameset.html
The information is a bit outdated. Also I don't agree with the DNSBLs
are bad recommendation (we're blocking over 50% of the mail using
DNSBLs here).
A
Ing. Andrea Vettori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/17/2007
02:30:09 AM:
Apple confirmed the bug and says they are working on it. Now I really
need a temporary workaround. Any hint ?
The sending server is broken. There is nothing I can do about it as it
is not under my control. Please
Ing. Andrea Vettori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/17/2007
09:13:03 AM:
if this is an acceptable solution to the company where the mimedefang/
f-secure installation is, how can I check the condition and how can I
send the email to the sender ?
Does exist in mimedefang a standard way to
John Rudd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/16/2007 03:10:29 PM:
But the other side of that coin is: if you need that kind of
hand-holding, you might be better off paying for canit-pro. It uses
MIMEDefang at its core (right? I didn't misinterpret that?), and wraps
around that a support/etc.
Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote on 01/07/2007 04:50:11 AM:
Some of the replies have some good points.
This one is interesting:
won't do wht you think it does
Hey folks, this isn't going to do anything for security. There's
going to be a button that allows them to simply
DFS wrote on 01/08/2007 10:11:53 AM:
I think you'd be better off filtering the HTML part through lynx -dump.
You can even do it with some fairly simple MIMEDefang code in filter:
[code snipped]
Be aware that this will consume quite a bit of CPU power, and very
likely
annoy the h*ll out of
Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote on 12/15/2006 07:43:46 AM:
One rule that comes to mind is to reject all usernames with no vowels in
them. The names I choose always have vowels. Does anyone see any obvious
problems with that? I can't do that with a sendmail table, but it's easy
to
Jeff wrote on 12/09/2006 04:57:51 PM:
So, when my server sends e-mail, it uses saber.nabs.net as its
EHLO, and the connection comes from 71.246.216.107. host
saber.nabs.net returns 71.246.216.107, which is the same IP that the
connection comes from. So far, so good.
But, host
Joseph Brennan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/30/2006 08:56:14 AM:
If you reject messages with executable attachments first, let us know
whether the virus check catches anything at all.
Out of curiousity, I looked at the statistics report from my CanIt Pro
installation. More virii than
DFS wrote on 11/30/2006 02:10:27 PM:
What's your internal server running? Some versions of MS Exchange and
qmail
don't reject invalid recipients at RCPT time, so
md_check_against_smtp_server
is useless. With other versions of Exchange, you need to explicitly
enable RCPT-time checks;
Not to mention legit words that contain blacklisted words. Looking for
cialis will trigger on specialist, for instance.
Best one I ran into was someone who no longer got replies when emailing
his boss after he added his title of Analyst to his sig block and
started hitting the existing
renaud pascal [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote on 10/20/2006 08:54:57
AM:
Le vendredi 20 octobre 2006 14:47, Gary McLean a écrit :
I will be out of the office starting 20/10/2006 and will not return
until
23/10/2006.
that's funny, now let's test if this 'vacation' program has got the
second
DFS wrote on 10/20/2006 12:54:28 PM:
Does Lotus Notes/Domino respect the Precedence: list header and not
send auto-replies?
Apparently not.
Does it avoid sending auto-replies if the
sender matches *-request, *-relay, *-owner, owner-*,
postmaster, mailer and mailer-daemon?
Probably not,
Martin Blapp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/05/2006 06:56:48 PM:
But after one of the milters have been shut down, we found out
that DNS round robin with bind sucks.
Does it still do this if, instead of round robin on the A records, you use
round robin on the MX records?
ie:
mailIN MX
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/09/2006 08:43:19
AM:
List,
I have been asked to investigate setting up a solution to allow only
certain
senders... to email only certain recipients, with any non-approved
sender/recipient messages being rejected. It sounds like the company
wants
to look
Steve Campbell wrote on 07/06/2006 05:11:25 PM:
2). It would be nice to be able to do the md_check_against_smtp_server
using an IP address as opposed to a hostname for the variable
$rcpt_host.
Looking at my logs, I see where it checks the IP defined by my DNS for
the
$rcpt_host, even
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_%28food%29
---
SPAM(tm) Ingredients: Pork with Ham, Salt, Water, Modified Potato Starch,
Sugar, Sodium Nitrate
William Brown
Web Development Messaging Services
Technology Services, WNYRIC, Erie 1 BOCES
(716)821-7285
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/15/2006 08:35:56
AM:
You just reminded me of a quote...
It's not black magic, but there are legitimate technical reasons why
sendmail configuration requires the sacrificing of a live chicken.
-unknown-
I have the same quote posted prominantly on my wall...
Kelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/15/2006 01:41:17 PM:
The only real use for the www. prefix is as a visual cue indicating that
the address refers to a website. It's shorter and more aesthetically
pleasing than http:// It's certainly not easy in speech. double-u
double-u double-u dot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/10/2006 08:57:53
AM:
That is known as the implicit MX and is held over from before the MX
resource record existed. However, in my opinion, it has long outlived
it's usefulness and now poses issues when a domain really doesn't want
to have mail exchanged in
Martin Blapp wrote on 05/03/2006 05:27:55 PM:
Do you mean something like:
http://antispam.imp.ch/03-wormlist.html?lng=1
Exactly. I saw the comments in your other message about it being
regional. How are you collecting the data? Is it only systems that have
sent to your server(s)? Do you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/03/2006 02:56:40
AM:
Well, there is yet another possibility:
The AV software the ISP is running did simply not detected that
particular
malware.
Granted. Perhaps detecting when they first send that virus and allowing
them 2 hours to get new defs before
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/03/2006 05:19:31
AM:
Effectively, a certificate system would be the same as a whitelist - the
owner of the system has to take action to have it recognised as a valid
mail
server.
Sounds like SPF... Owner taking action... to register SPF record. Some
now
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/03/2006 11:48:16
AM:
You guys in the States need to embrace the world of technology ;-)
But if you listen to our politicians, we're leading the world when it
comes to technology. Hell, even China has better penetration of high
speed internet than the US does in
Since my last idea got shot down pretty thoroughly, I though I'd float
another idea past the list. :)
Since a large volume of spam is sent by machines that have been
compromised, frequently by virii, is there any reason to trust a sender
that has been seen sending virii in the recent past.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/02/2006 12:11:00
PM:
I tried this. Turns out a shocking number of ISPs and businesses don't
bother running AV software on their outbound servers and just blindly
relay their users' mail.
If you run the BL locally and no one knows about it. If it's a publicly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/21/2006 02:05:52
PM:
I see this as a good thing. You can tie the spam back to a
particular user. They change their password, and the ratware is
blocked.
Are the credentials really stolen, or is the ratware actually using the
credentials that belong on the
Here's an idea for blocking image spam: What about taking the idea of
SURBL and DNSRBls and extending it to images. My proposal is to hash the
image and do a DNS query using the hash value and domain hosting the image
RBL.
This eliminates the need to OCR the graphic, and if they obscure the
DFS wrote on 04/20/2006 09:02:24 AM:
This is a good idea until spammers start mutating their images.
The same can be said for any spam blockling technique: It's effective
until they work around it. Grey listing worked until they started
honoring 450 responses. Bayes worked until the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/07/2006 11:13:12
AM:
All,
Is there a way to change the port number that sendmail's dnsbl and
endnsbl
features use? I run a local rbldnsd server and rsync some blacklists. I
want to know which list rejected an IP, so cant just have one
FEATURE(`dnsbl')
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/07/2006 11:34:19
AM:
No it will be logged. I have a script that runs through the maillog and
makes some rrdtool graphs, and i want stats on the number of hits for
each rbl. So i need sendmail to log a different entry for each rbl.
You might research how
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/30/2006 10:47:59
AM:
Is it just me or is everyone feeling sense of impending doom as well?
Let's just say I'm not optimistic about this.
Wouldn't it be funny if everyone simply blocked GoodMail users for 1
week?
in access:
yahoo.com REJECT Please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/30/2006 12:12:44
PM:
As I understand it, Yahoo is only using GoodMail to certify
transactional mails -- i.e. to identify real mail from your bank vs.
phishing mail, or order confirmations, shipping notices, etc. So the
lack of a GoodMail seal isn't likely
DFS wrote on 03/08/2006 10:12:51 PM:
Ooh! You're onto something! Allowing only strictly-validated HTML
would have the same effect as disallowing HTML altogether, but would
be far easier to justify to the PHBs as a
security/compliance/standards/pick_your_buzzword issue...
I like it! Can I
DFS wrote on 03/09/2006 11:11:05 AM:
Probably not... too difficult to implement and too little demand,
alas...
OK, but it does sound like a nice feature.
If I worked at a place like that, my e-mails would all look like this:
htmlheadtitlePHB-decreed HTML mail/title/head
[snip]
Guess
Kenneth Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/27/2006 10:56:56 AM:
The discussion of grey listing and critical email reminds me that
email
is used a lot as a B2B file transfer system. At least, it gets used that
way a lot by my company and its partners.
[snip]
What other options have you
DFS wrote on 02/27/2006 11:30:21 AM:
Or you could use SFTP.
You're correct. Some of the traffic should probably be encrypted since it
may contain student information.
One user was trying to send a database via email that got blocked. I went
apesh!t on them when I found out it was a payroll
Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/27/2006 12:02:51 PM:
Email at least makes a token effort to maintain privacy with
file level permissions that is hard to duplicate with other
ad-hoc file exchanges. And, you've probably gone to some trouble
to screen viruses that would pass other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/15/2006 06:59:34
PM:
I don't run PGP on this box... (laffin)
It's fun to watch though..
Right up there with watching attempts to hack an IIS box when it's not
even running Windows! Damn crap can fill up a log though.
A friend pointed out http://spampoison.com to me.
Interesting premise, although I think similar ideas have been raised here,
ie publishing lots of bogus email addresses on the web for spammers to
harvest. THis one goes a bit further in making an organized effort to get
lots of sites to do
DFS wrote on 01/31/2006 09:57:58 AM:
Replying to myself...
I think the reason lots of spammers are abusing Hotmail is this
note in our incident report:
SPF query returned 'pass'
But wouldn't it be in Microsoft's best interest to prevent their servers
from being used to spam? Even
DFS wrote on 01/31/2006 09:53:34 AM:
http://www.roaringpenguin.com/canit/showtrap.php?f=hotmailfr=cstatus=spam
Interesting to note that most look like scam spam. No enhancement pills,
no cheap software, no porno sites coming from hotmail.
___
NOTE:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/21/2006 02:09:26
PM:
I ran into a problem quarantining messages on a FreeBSD 5.4 box.
Specifically, I hit the upper limit for the number of directories a
single directory can hold (32767). I store about 2 weeks of quarantined
mail in case anything needs to be
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com wrote on 01/19/2006 05:30:21 PM:
Kenneth Porter wrote:
I just received a virus hoax (life is beautiful) forwarded from one
of my users, so I sent results of my google (including Snopes and
BreakTheChain) upstream to previous recipients.
Now I'm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/19/2006 10:27:15
AM:
Content-Type: text/html;
name*0=file:///C|/DOKUME%7E1/ANDRE/LOKALE%7E1/TEMP/nsmail-1.htm
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename*0=file:///C|/DOKUME%7E1/ANDRE/LOKALE%7E1/TEMP/nsmail-1.htm
In this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/19/2006 12:30:47
PM:
3) Atomically rename database.db.new to database.db
Can you enlightne me on what Atomically rename means? How is that
different than just a mv command. I can understand that a process that
opened the file under the old name is still going
DFS wrote on 01/17/2006 03:35:08 PM:
It's hairy, but manageable. Doing per-recipient content-filtering is
a lot hairier and less managable; we have to use hacks like
stream_by_domain or stream_by_recipient. Unfortunately, that's just how
SMTP works.
Speaking of stram_by_domain, Is there
DFS wrote on 01/18/2006 10:41:06 AM:
It depends on the MTA. I believe Sendmail is smart enough to notice
that
both MX hosts have the same IP address, and send the mail over one SMTP
session.
I sort of expected that to be the case. That's why I asked the follow up
question.
Well, the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/18/2006 11:02:37
AM:
That sounds like a good idea, if you have the IP addresses to
spare... if not you'll need to do some SWIPing.
I may be able to get them. How well does RHEL 3 handle 50 addresses bound
to one NIC?
On a tempory rule basis, as nobody but nobody should allow the servers
to
patch themselves ,. look at the dmg this has done in the past !
Agreed. But getting a firewall manager to open the rule every time you
want to get patches for the server will get you on their sh*t list.
Windoze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/12/2006 11:19:10
AM:
1. There is only one ptr record per IP.
Not true. I was testing that on my internal DNS:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ dig -x 168.169.93.3
; DiG 9.3.1 -x 168.169.93.3
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status:
Now, if only you could do the same to all the broken firewalls that
*other* people run :-)
User: I'm not getting email from $SOMEWHERE
Me: I'm sorry, their system seems to be broken. Have them fix it and then
mail will work.
User: But I need that mail!!! Can't you fix it?
Me: No. It's
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
