On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:26:38 -0500
Alex wrote:
> We've actually had false-positives due to how the list is built into
> rules. In other words, "i...@ca.com" is still on the list from 2011.
> They're also not bounded by default, so noi...@ca.com and
> morei...@ca.com would also be caught, for exam
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:07:50 +
> RW wrote:
>
>> > OK. Any FPs, though? That's the other half of the test.
>
>> No, but it's pretty unlikely there would be.
>
> Actually, it's very likely there will be a lot of FPs, but it's also
>
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:07:50 +
RW wrote:
> > OK. Any FPs, though? That's the other half of the test.
> No, but it's pretty unlikely there would be.
Actually, it's very likely there will be a lot of FPs, but it's also
very likely that any given user of the list won't see them. That's
bec
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:22:17 -0500
Dianne Skoll wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:14:33 +
> RW wrote:
>
> > FWIW I ran that list against 3k spams received from late 2015
> > onwards. I got 2 hits on 2 separate addesses both timestamped with
> > 2012.
>
> OK. Any FPs, though? That's the ot
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:14:33 +
RW wrote:
> FWIW I ran that list against 3k spams received from late 2015
> onwards. I got 2 hits on 2 separate addesses both timestamped with
> 2012.
OK. Any FPs, though? That's the other half of the test.
Regards,
Dianne.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 09:23:07 -0500
Dianne Skoll wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:45:07 +
> Vincent Fox wrote:
>
> > Come on, look at the datestamps on the addresses in that list!
> > Plenty from 2009.
>
> The reason they datestamp the addresses is so that sites making use of
> the list can
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:45:07 +
Vincent Fox wrote:
> Come on, look at the datestamps on the addresses in that list!
> Plenty from 2009.
The reason they datestamp the addresses is so that sites making use of
the list can determine on their own when data is stale enough to ignore.
I do agree t
19, 2017 9:21:14 AM
To: SA Mailing list
Subject: Google anti-phishing code project
Hi all, for some time I've been using the following Google code
project for a list of thousands of addresses used in phishing attacks:
https://code.google.com/archive/p/anti-phishing-email-reply/
It appears
I've not come across these before.. I am too interested in how to integrate
them in to SA thanks.
On 20 February 2017 at 21:56, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Dianne Skoll
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:21:08 -0500
> > Alex wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe we're using som
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:21:08 -0500
> Alex wrote:
>
>> Maybe we're using something different. This is the link I was using to
>> download the phishing addresses until the other day, when it became a
>> dead link:
>
>> https://aper.svn.sou
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:21:08 -0500
Alex wrote:
> Maybe we're using something different. This is the link I was using to
> download the phishing addresses until the other day, when it became a
> dead link:
> https://aper.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/aper/phishing_reply_addresses
That URL works fo
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 12:21:14 -0500
> Alex wrote:
>
>> https://code.google.com/archive/p/anti-phishing-email-reply/
>> It appears to no longer be active, as some time yesterday.
>
> It's still active. The most recent commit is dated today, a
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 12:21:14 -0500
Alex wrote:
> https://code.google.com/archive/p/anti-phishing-email-reply/
> It appears to no longer be active, as some time yesterday.
It's still active. The most recent commit is dated today, and I still
have commit privileges.
Regards,
Dianne.
Hi all, for some time I've been using the following Google code
project for a list of thousands of addresses used in phishing attacks:
https://code.google.com/archive/p/anti-phishing-email-reply/
It appears to no longer be active, as some time yesterday. Anyone have
any idea if something has repl
14 matches
Mail list logo