...on the list who might be able to comment on how they/you/BT is
detecting downstream clients that are bot-infected, and how exactly
you are dealing with them?
Unfortunately, the way you phrased that question is
rather journalistic and in BT, as in most large companies,
employees are
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/12/bt_spam_buster/
Also http://wesii.econinfosec.org/draft.php?paper_id=47
(Google will give you an HTML version.)
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/
SHANNON: NORTHERLY 4 OR 5 INCREASING
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
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Chris Edwards wrote:
Aside from the invalid mails, this article suggests they're mostly
identifying spam by the source IP (ie. their customer's IP) being listed
in a DNSBL. So how come they need this super-duper real-time content
scanning infrastructure ? Why wouldn't
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:09:48AM +, Fergie wrote:
...on the list who might be able to comment on how they/you/BT is
detecting downstream clients that are bot-infected, and how exactly you
are dealing with them?
Which bit of BT? They've got their fingers in quite a lot of pies, and the
Peter Corlett wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:09:48AM +, Fergie wrote:
...on the list who might be able to comment on how they/you/BT is
detecting downstream clients that are bot-infected, and how exactly you
are dealing with them?
Which bit of BT? They've got their fingers in quite
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Peter Corlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:09:48AM +, Fergie wrote:
...on the list who might be able to comment on how they/you/BT is
detecting downstream clients that are bot-infected, and how exactly you
are
