However, since this was 12 hours after the initial attack, it was a
reasonable response. My first server-based filter was a subject filter,
meant to stem the tide while I developed something a little better. Turns
out "something better" was easily implemented, but nowhere near as easy as
the 3 m
> > When I sent my analysis of the "iloveyou" virus to BugTraq, I was
> > deluged with email - all of them bounces. Because my message started
with
> > "ilove you", many, many mail servers had blocked it. That was within
> > something like 12 hours of the release. Think of the immense amoun
> > The problem isn't MUA's. The problem is that users were duped
into
> > executing a program of a malicious intent.
>
> I disagree. The problem is that Microsoft markets their systems to people
> who don't know what they are doing, but includes features in them that
> make it easy for the
Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll be suprised if the next version of qmail doesn't have better
> support for filtering/processing messages. DJB is good at addressing
> users needs in subsequent releases. Look at the development of
> DNScache or the early qmail days for two examples.
I
On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 05:14:46PM -0600,
Steve Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When I sent my analysis of the "iloveyou" virus to BugTraq, I was
> deluged with email - all of them bounces. Because my message started with
> "ilove you", many, many mail servers had blocked it. That wa
On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 05:14:46PM -0600,
Steve Wolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > there should be no need to "hack" qmail
> >
> > And there isn't! Why do people persist on insecure MUAs?
>
> I'll chime in on this, even though my view may not be the same as
> everyone else's.
>
> T
>But if you are the first one to sell 'secure' qmail servers you will be
>the MS of .au!
We have already been doing this for the last 2 years
Perhaps we should set up an office in AU! ;-)
>That and make profit along the way!
What an excellent idea!
___
>Here in .au there are rumblings of legislation for ISPs to block virii
Its mathmatically provable that there exists an infinite number
of files which cannot be analysed by any virus scanner - that it to
say, the virus scanner would be unable to prove that the file definately
does not contain a v
Steve Wolfe writes:
> The problem isn't MUA's. The problem is that users were duped into
> executing a program of a malicious intent.
Ah, but in most cases it was the MUA. If the MUA is the 'right' (wrong?)
version of Outlook, then the virus activates on reading or previewing
the virus.
>Steve Wolfe writes:
> > The problem isn't MUA's. The problem is that users were duped into
> > executing a program of a malicious intent.
>
>And until the MUA is fixed, this will happen again, and again and
>again and again. Replace your MUA with something that's secure and
>you have solve
Steve Wolfe writes:
> The problem isn't MUA's. The problem is that users were duped into
> executing a program of a malicious intent.
And until the MUA is fixed, this will happen again, and again and
again and again. Replace your MUA with something that's secure and
you have solved the p
> > there should be no need to "hack" qmail
>
> And there isn't! Why do people persist on insecure MUAs?
I'll chime in on this, even though my view may not be the same as
everyone else's.
The problem isn't MUA's. The problem is that users were duped into
executing a program of a malicio
But if you are the first one to sell 'secure' qmail servers you will be
the MS of .au!
Take a bad thing and make it into a good one. That and make profit along
the way!
Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph 570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545
On Fri, 5 May 2000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
> Keith Warno wrote:
> >
> > there should be no need to "hack" qmail
>
> And there isn't! Why do people persist on insecure MUAs?
My sentiment exactly.
Why should I have to expend valuable time and resources fixing
Microsofts dud ware.
Here in .au there are rumblings of
Keith Warno wrote:
>
> there should be no need to "hack" qmail
And there isn't! Why do people persist on insecure MUAs?
__
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Lord Macbeth knew he was a
On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 12:21:40PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Finally, there *is* a well defined interface at which all mail going thru
> qmail can be filtered. It's called qmail-queue. Nothing is stopping any
> enterprising person or organization from writing or commercializing a filtering
on 5/5/00 12:27 PM, Keith Warno had the thought:
>
> qmail is a programmer's MTA. (Un)fortunately the world isn't full of
> programmers. When things like the "love bug" hit the main stream, getting
> everyone to frantically and quickly slam their doors shut in the faces of
> all that is unwante
On Fri, May 05, 2000 at 03:27:40PM -0400, Keith Warno wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> The continued discussions about the "love bug" and qmail "hacks" for dealing
> with it have me disturbed. I won't knock djb; the man needs to write an OS
> one of these days. :) However there should be no need to "ha
Hello all.
The continued discussions about the "love bug" and qmail "hacks" for dealing
with it have me disturbed. I won't knock djb; the man needs to write an OS
one of these days. :) However there should be no need to "hack" qmail to
get it to filter unwanted mail and I'm wondering if future
"Keith Warno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The continued discussions about the "love bug" and qmail "hacks" for dealing
>with it have me disturbed. I won't knock djb; the man needs to write an OS
>one of these days. :) However there should be no need to "hack" qmail to
>get it to filter unwante
20 matches
Mail list logo
