RE: [Mimedefang] Spammer zombie group behaviour

2004-04-23 Thread Paul Murphy
> I'm just experimenting with adding greylisting, and doing it after > the RCPT TO. I'm curious as to why Groupwise makes that a problem. See http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/pipermail/mimedefang/2004-January/019541.html Also, note that Groupwise has had several security problems in its SMTP modu

Re: [Mimedefang] Spammer zombie group behaviour

2004-04-23 Thread Jim Hatfield
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:57:54 +0100, in local.mimedefang you wrote: >is now being transmitted multiple times. That wouldn't be a problem >with >greylisting after the RCPT TO command, but too many folks use nasty >Novell >Groupwise for me to get away with that. I'm just experimenting with adding g

Re: [Mimedefang] Spammer zombie group behaviour

2004-04-22 Thread David F. Skoll
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Sevo Stille wrote: > This doesn't neccessarily imply coordination. There's definitely coordination. The attempts come in one after the other, with no overlap -- if you look in my mail log, you'll see that the delivery attempts are nicely serialized. Machine 1 tries, fails.

Re: [Mimedefang] Spammer zombie group behaviour

2004-04-22 Thread Chris Myers
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 5:19 PM Subject: RE: [Mimedefang] Spammer zombie group behaviour > > From: Chris Myers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > There are groups o

RE: [Mimedefang] Spammer zombie group behaviour

2004-04-22 Thread Matthew . van . Eerde
> From: Chris Myers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > There are groups of spam zombie systems THAT ARE COMMUNICATING > WITH EACH OTHER to retry failed deliveries. If System A fails todeliver > the message, then System B tries, and then System C tries, and so on. Indeed. If this were in

Re: [Mimedefang] Spammer zombie group behaviour

2004-04-22 Thread Sevo Stille
David F. Skoll wrote: One more followup: We have dramatic evidence of coordination. Please see, for example: http://www.roaringpenguin.com/canit/reports.php?what=hit-n-run-dom&domain=t-online.de Log in as "demo" with password "demo" You can see clusters of machines with each cluster comprising a

Re: [Mimedefang] Spammer zombie group behaviour

2004-04-22 Thread Joseph Brennan
--On Thursday, April 22, 2004 1:57 PM -0500 Chris Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't have a way to get my hands on one of the compromised systems, so I don't know how they're communicating (I can speculate of course...), but it seems pretty clear to me that they ARE communicating. We ha

Re: [Mimedefang] Spammer zombie group behaviour

2004-04-22 Thread David F. Skoll
One more followup: We have dramatic evidence of coordination. Please see, for example: http://www.roaringpenguin.com/canit/reports.php?what=hit-n-run-dom&domain=t-online.de Log in as "demo" with password "demo" You can see clusters of machines with each cluster comprising a spam attack. The la

Re: [Mimedefang] Spammer zombie group behaviour

2004-04-22 Thread David F. Skoll
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Chris Myers wrote: > There are groups of spam zombie systems THAT ARE COMMUNICATING > WITH EACH OTHER to retry failed deliveries. If System A fails > to deliver the message, then System B tries, and then System C > tries, and so on. I have observed this behav