On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Barry Shein wrote:
| Sean's point was that you can't cause, e.g., [EMAIL PROTECTED] alone to
| go to a server other than the same set of servers listed for
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes of course - but only a fundamental problem where the MX servers are
hopelessly overloaded.
.
Chris
--
Chris Edwards, Glasgow University Computing Service
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Tony Finch wrote:
| Also http://wesii.econinfosec.org/draft.php?paper_id=47
| (Google will give you an HTML version.)
Well spotted - interesting.
This is monitoring SMTP leaving their network, right ?
I guess the yellow line on the graphs (invalid mail - rejected inline
not involve more than
one mac per switch port. Nor are there any changes in switch port / mac
associations.
You need to watch at the higher layers (arp, ip).
Cheers
--
Chris Edwards, Glasgow University Computing Service
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| The key thing here is that there is some kind of contractual agreement
| between the second tier and the core members. If the second tier breaks
| the agreement, their email flow is summarily cut off. You can do that
| with contracts.
Yup.
As you've mentioned, we
(was: Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| When it gets built, will it list AOL.COM for not rejecting at the original RCPT
| TO? Or Hotmail.com?
Much as I hate to come to their defence, hotmail rejects unknown users
during the dialog, and has done so for as long as
. . . 16-31, 48-63
Base64 U E s D B A-P. . . Q-Za-fw-z0-9+/
Regexp: UEsDB[Q-Za-fw-z0-9\+/]
--
Chris Edwards, Glasgow University Computing Service
