On March 13, 2015 7:36:21 PM David B Funk wrote:
# dig -t ns hardinskinrestore.com.
dig +trace example.com
spam domains just need ns for there own subdomains, if its dns delegated,
back to basic if comal is so hard :)
On 3/13/15, 2:47 PM, "Kevin A. McGrail" wrote:
>On 3/13/2015 3:16 PM, David B Funk wrote:
>>Your 'been there - got bitten', is that a reference to the temptation
>>or the actual case of no NS records?
>Axb's sister was once bitten by a M00se.
She was Karving her initials on the m00se with the sh
On 3/13/2015 3:16 PM, David B Funk wrote:
Your 'been there - got bitten', is that a reference to the temptation
or the actual case of no NS records?
Axb's sister was once bitten by a M00se.
On Friday 13/03/2015 at 2:17 pm, David B Funk wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Axb wrote:
On 03/13/2015 07:54 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, David B Funk wrote:
Except that the rrpproxy.net people have figured out a way to
cirumvent this.
They now register spammer domains and d
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Axb wrote:
On 03/13/2015 07:54 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, David B Funk wrote:
Except that the rrpproxy.net people have figured out a way to
cirumvent this.
They now register spammer domains and don't list -any- NS records in
the zone.
Is *that* a useful
On 03/13/2015 07:54 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, David B Funk wrote:
Except that the rrpproxy.net people have figured out a way to
cirumvent this.
They now register spammer domains and don't list -any- NS records in
the zone.
Is *that* a useful spam sign?
Remember, SA is not a
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, David B Funk wrote:
Except that the rrpproxy.net people have figured out a way to cirumvent this.
They now register spammer domains and don't list -any- NS records in the
zone.
Is *that* a useful spam sign?
Remember, SA is not an RFC compliance validation tool. If a few
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015, Axb wrote:
I don't quite understand your logic/language but yes, that's the point of
such a list. You list the NS and all domains on that NS get scored.
for example see:
URIBL's "Extra Datasets via Datafeed Service"
http://uribl.com/datasets.shtml
black_ns.txt - This fil
On 03/11/2015 01:49 PM, Gibbs, David wrote:
On 3/10/2015 5:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
for postfix there is "check_sender_ns_access
hash:/etc/postfix/blacklist_ns.cf" with the advantage of logging and a
proper reject
cat /etc/postfix/blacklist_ns.cf
ns1.sedoparking.com REJECT Domain is pa
On 3/10/2015 5:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
for postfix there is "check_sender_ns_access hash:/etc/postfix/blacklist_ns.cf"
with the advantage of logging and a proper reject
cat /etc/postfix/blacklist_ns.cf
ns1.sedoparking.com REJECT Domain is parked at sedo.com
ns2.sedoparking.com R
On 03/11/2015 10:57 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Axb skrev den 2015-03-11 10:41:
RPZ zones are domain lists - NOT nameservers lists
nameservers is domain aswell imho :=)
if anything using rbldnsd
:-)
here is just see domain not found if rpz listed, and i dont plan to list
my dns hoster for
On 03/11/2015 10:57 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Axb skrev den 2015-03-11 10:41:
RPZ zones are domain lists - NOT nameservers lists
nameservers is domain aswell imho :=)
if anything using rbldnsd
:-)
here is just see domain not found if rpz listed, and i dont plan to list
my dns hoster for
Axb skrev den 2015-03-11 10:41:
RPZ zones are domain lists - NOT nameservers lists
nameservers is domain aswell imho :=)
if anything using rbldnsd
:-)
here is just see domain not found if rpz listed, and i dont plan to list
my dns hoster for being free and good no matter how many bad dom
On 03/11/2015 10:20 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
Kevin Miller skrev den 2015-03-10 23:01:
FWIW, I put on my BOFH hat, and just blocked those name servers at the
filewall. They're based in Germany so it's a pretty safe bet that I'm
not going to see legitimate mail from any of the legitimate domain
Kevin Miller skrev den 2015-03-10 23:01:
FWIW, I put on my BOFH hat, and just blocked those name servers at the
filewall. They're based in Germany so it's a pretty safe bet that I'm
not going to see legitimate mail from any of the legitimate domains
hosted by them. That may not be the case for
On 03/10/2015 11:01 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kevin A. McGrail [mailto:kmcgr...@pccc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:31 PM
To: Kevin Miller; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bogus day old domains from RRPPROXY.NET
On 2/19/2015 2:50 PM, Kevin Miller
Am 10.03.2015 um 23:01 schrieb Kevin Miller:
-Original Message-
From: Kevin A. McGrail [mailto:kmcgr...@pccc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:31 PM
To: Kevin Miller; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bogus day old domains from RRPPROXY.NET
On 2/19/2015 2:50 PM, Kevin
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin A. McGrail [mailto:kmcgr...@pccc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:31 PM
> To: Kevin Miller; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Bogus day old domains from RRPPROXY.NET
>
> On 2/19/2015 2:50 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:
On 2/19/2015 2:50 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:
Is there a way to reject or up the score on anything that is served up by that
name server or registar? I was thinking maybe putting the rrproxy.net
nameserver in my dns as 127.0.0.1, on the theory that if it doesn't resolve the
message will be reject
Lately we've been getting slammed by spam. The bulk of it (no pun intended) is
coming from new domains (many just a day or two old) which originate from
key-systems gmbh, and all use RRPPROXY.NET as their name servers such as this
snippet from whois:
Domain Name: WATTSMINDANDBODYLAB.COM
20 matches
Mail list logo
