I'm working on setting up a spamtrap that'll be for
Sniffer.
One question:
Do you want the email to be filtered?
options.
Bring in all email.
Delete all email that Sniffer finds a match on. So
the only mail left will be mail that Sniffer returned a 0 on.
Run normal tests.
hit when we submit spam that
is already detected...
Andrew 8)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott
FisherSent: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:28 PMTo:
sniffer@SortMonster.comSubject: [sniffer] POP3 Account
Question
I'm working on se
is not helpful.
Pete, how'd I do?
Andrew 8)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck,
AndrewSent: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:34 PMTo:
sniffer@SortMonster.comSubject: RE: [sniffer] POP3 Account
Question
I had the same question, but
On Monday, December 5, 2005, 3:28:17 PM, Scott wrote:
>
I'm working on setting up a spamtrap that'll be for Sniffer.
One question:
Do you want the email to be filtered?
The following is the best option for us - it provides the most useful data while still keeping the bandwidth as
On Monday, December 5, 2005, 3:33:33 PM, Andrew wrote:
>
I had the same question, but more specifically:
Is is helpful for sniffer trap (spam and user trap) submissions to skip, or to include messages on which sniffer already hits.
It's best for those messages to be removed. The tr
On Monday, December 5, 2005, 3:38:14 PM, Andrew wrote:
>
(nuts, to fast on the "Send" button).
... plus, future hits on spam that is already detected can accumulate hits on, say, SNIFFEREXPIP that weren't already hitting. Therefore, trying to save bandwidth and processing power over at
On Monday, December 5, 2005, 6:02:02 PM, John wrote:
>
What is the best way to get a spam trap going. I have an old "abandoned" email account that I just use for testing. It gets some spam now, but a low volume. However, 100% of the mail is spam. It would be very easy to filter and keep
On Monday, December 5, 2005, 6:02:02 PM, John wrote:
>
What is the best way to get a spam trap going.
I forgot to mention another way to set up spamtraps that I definitely "don't recommend". It is, of course, highly theoretical and possibly dangerous ;-)
If a new pc (actually a very
On Tuesday, December 6, 2005, 2:13:43 PM, William wrote:
WVH> Pete,
WVH> How about just creating some accounts that are commonly targeted by
WVH> dictionary attacks, but that were never actually valid accounts on our
WVH> server? I could redirect all of them to a common mailbox. There are also a
> The only caveat is making sure that nobody on the outside would ever
> have reason to expect an info@ or sales@ address existed...
> sometimes folks will guess.
Especially on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd say that's not a safe spamtrap at all.
Sales@
is more retail-specific, but info@ is p
der.
Should I use it to sign
up at some junkmail sites, kind of "seeding" the account to encourage spam to
it?
John C
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete
McNeilSent: Monday, December 05, 2005 4:11 PMTo: Colbeck,
AndrewSubject: Re[2]: [sniffer] P
r 05, 2005 2:21 PMTo:
Colbeck, AndrewSubject: Re[2]: [sniffer] POP3 Account
Question
On Monday, December 5, 2005, 3:38:14 PM, Andrew wrote:
>
(nuts, to fast on the "Send" button).
... plus, future
Pete,
How about just creating some accounts that are commonly targeted by
dictionary attacks, but that were never actually valid accounts on our
server? I could redirect all of them to a common mailbox. There are also a
few other "common" (non-role) addresses that we do not use, which always get
t
used
in brute force methods, though, and would be useful.
- Original Message -
From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William Van Hefner"
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 3:25 PM
Subject: Re[6]: [sniffer] POP3 Account Question
> On Tuesday, December
14 matches
Mail list logo
