* Benny Pedersen [25/11/2011 17:54] :
>
> maillists often not remove originating sender addr, if thay did how
> can i get all that private emails orinating from maillists ?
I believe that rh is suggesting not to put email adresses in the body of
your mail if you're replying to a mailing-list.
Mos
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:43:00 +0100
Thierry Besancon wrote:
> On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote:
> > Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
> > 178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
> > serious fault in the browsers.
>
> According to C standards, a number beginnin
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:27:53 -0600 (CST)
Dave Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, RW wrote:
>
> > If you actually want give a score to a hidden rule (to see whether
> > it's being hit), I would do it this way:
> >
> > metaBAR __FOO
> > score BAR 0.001
> >
>
> Another way to
Hi,
in your opinion, what it will be the best RBL Anti Spam list that could not
be left in a server, payed or free?
My server is an small server with a few accounts, but it seems that my RBLs
are not the best ones and I will like to have your inputs in which ones I
will need to relay on.
Best Reg
On 11/28, Sergio wrote:
>in your opinion, what it will be the best RBL Anti Spam list that could
>not be left in a server, payed or free?
All the best known RBLs are enabled in spamassassin by default.
You may get more useful suggestions if you provide several example spam
emails using so
On 11/28/11 12:55 PM, "dar...@chaosreigns.com"
wrote:
> On 11/28, Sergio wrote:
>>in your opinion, what it will be the best RBL Anti Spam list that could
>>not be left in a server, payed or free?
>
> All the best known RBLs are enabled in spamassassin by default.
>
> If there are be
Am 28.11.2011 20:17, schrieb Daniel McDonald:
>
>
>
> On 11/28/11 12:55 PM, "dar...@chaosreigns.com"
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/28, Sergio wrote:
>>>in your opinion, what it will be the best RBL Anti Spam list that could
>>>not be left in a server, payed or free?
>>
>> All the best known RBLs
On Nov 28, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Daniel McDonald wrote:
> The best RBLS for getting rid of snow-shoe spammers are from Invaluement,
> but it is avaiable by subscription only. I don't know if Rob McEwen
> has any interest in running it through GA...
But the subscription rates are very reasonable com
On 2011/11/28 05:43, RW wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:43:00 +0100
Thierry Besancon wrote:
On 2011-11-27 13:26:43, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
serious fault in the browsers.
According to C standards,
On 11/28, jdow wrote:
> >>>Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
> >>>178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
If you have multiple emails with this pattern that spamassassin is not
catching, please provide them via something like pastebin. We can create
rules to ma
On 2011/11/28 14:36, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 11/28, jdow wrote:
Which browser(s) treat addresses of the form
178.000235.150.000372 as actual addresses? That seems like a
If you have multiple emails with this pattern that spamassassin is not
catching, please provide them via someth
In the recent discussion someone suggested using the junk data that
Thunderbird or other email client that have a learning mechanism to make
rules for spamassassin. Has anyone done or looked into what it would
take to do this. I imagine it would be quite expensive processor wise.
But Thunder
> Why bug such people unless their product IS vulnerable? Note that this
> seems
> to be an email trying to get people who have a "vulnerable" browser to
> click
> a specific link. I'd expect that link to be loaded with a zero day or the
> likes that the browser exhibits.
>
> I figured people here
On 2011/11/28 17:05, C. Bensend wrote:
Why bug such people unless their product IS vulnerable? Note that this
seems
to be an email trying to get people who have a "vulnerable" browser to
click
a specific link. I'd expect that link to be loaded with a zero day or the
likes that the browser exhib
>> I guess I'm confused why you think this is a vulnerability... It's
>> simply another way to represent an IP address that browsers grok.
>> Is it obfuscation? Sure. But hell, for the average internet user,
>> a NON-obfuscated IP address is cryptic enough. ;) This is just
>> another way to d
On 2011/11/28 17:49, C. Bensend wrote:
I guess I'm confused why you think this is a vulnerability... It's
simply another way to represent an IP address that browsers grok.
Is it obfuscation? Sure. But hell, for the average internet user,
a NON-obfuscated IP address is cryptic enough. ;) Th
Don't have an answer for you, but I can say that the following URL works
under FF-8.0
http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/
(resolves to 18.18.18.18)
However, if you force browsers through a squid proxy, squid-2.6 at least
treats that as borked and won't play with it.
So even proxies are out of step with
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:35 -0800, jdow wrote:
> It is a way of obfuscating that's over the top and nobody has a way to
> get those oddball formulations easily from standard tools. They become
> an excellent way of leading people to strange addresses with strings
> that include ?ASFDikmedsfok3l1ma
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:21:56 +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/
does not work in chrome
they're http://0x12.0x12.com/ or the like!
is working as clickbar, maybe 0x12 is not a valid tld ?
On 11/28/2011 7:37 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:35 -0800, jdow wrote:
It is a way of obfuscating that's over the top and nobody has a way to
get those oddball formulations easily from standard tools. They become
an excellent way of leading people to strange addresses with
On 11/28/2011 7:41 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:21:56 +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
http://0x12.0x12.0x12.0x12/
does not work in chrome
I tried in Chrome 16.0.912.41 beta-m and 17.0.953.0 canary, both
instantly changed the displayed URL to "18.18.18.18" then timed out
tryin
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:35 -0800, jdow wrote:
It is a way of obfuscating that's over the top and nobody has a way to
get those oddball formulations easily from standard tools. They become
an excellent way of leading people to strange addresses with
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, John Hardin wrote:
firefox 8.0:
Error: Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at
0012.0012.0012.0012.
That appears to have been an artifact of randomly choosing 12, which maps
to the 10-net and falls afoul of my local network setup.
http://00200.00200.00200
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:21:23 -0800, Dave Warren wrote:
I tried in Chrome 16.0.912.41 beta-m and 17.0.953.0 canary, both
instantly changed the displayed URL to "18.18.18.18" then timed out
trying to browse.
yep, if i add this ip it gives error in 15.x.x.x chrome
dont know how to make chrome as
Hi,
I'm currently working on a crash course for administrators as part of Google
Code-in. I would really appreciate it if you could provide any feedback for
this project. This is still a big work in process and multiple definitions
still need to be added/revised. Please let me know if you have any
* Dorian Chan :
> Sorry, I don't really think the nabble attachment option really worked, so
> I'll actually attach it. Sorry for that!
It worked both times, but the document is almost unreadable because its filled
with comments. Can you post a clean version?
p@rick
--
state of mind ()
Digitale
26 matches
Mail list logo
