Re: Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-14 Thread Jason Frisvold
On 5/14/07, Christopher X. Candreva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This looks like what is being called "Snowshow" spammers on Spam-L . They will have a rather large block and just cycle through until their whols space is used up, then get more. Ugh.. I had heard about this tactic some time ago, b

Re: Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-14 Thread Christopher X. Candreva
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Jason Frisvold wrote: > later112.itbobble.com (216.74.88.112) > source238.wearisen.com (216.74.120.238) You can safely block all of 216.74.64.0/18 -- that's 216.75.64 - 216.74.127 == Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-14 Thread Christopher X. Candreva
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Jason Frisvold wrote: > Here's a sample of the hits I'm getting ... As you can see, its a > bunch of different IPs in various ranges.. I've decided to just block > the ranges at this point.. I have no idea if there's anything legit > in there, but I'll take that risk... >

Re: Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-13 Thread Jason Frisvold
Thanks for the heads up on this... This has given me a few ideas on some custom blocking software... If it works out, ill be sure to release it... On 5/13/07, Faisal N Jawdat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Given the level of the traffic, you might look at implementing something like Deny Spammers

Re: Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-13 Thread Jason Frisvold
Thanks for the heads up on this... This has given me a few ideas on some custom blocking software... If it works out, ill be sure to release it... On 5/13/07, Faisal N Jawdat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Given the level of the traffic, you might look at implementing something like Deny Spammers

Re: Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-13 Thread Faisal N Jawdat
Given the level of the traffic, you might look at implementing something like Deny Spammers at he /24 level (rather than the host level). https://sourceforge.net/projects/deny-spammers/ -faisal On May 13, 2007, at 12:15 AM, Jason Frisvold wrote: On 5/12/07, Jason Frisvold <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-12 Thread Jason Frisvold
On 5/12/07, Jason Frisvold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I installed the botnet plugin today, but it's not going to help anyway.. The IPs these are coming from resolve to a variety of different hostnames, all without triggering botnet at all. Here's a sample of the hits I'm getting ... As you ca

Re: Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-12 Thread Jason Frisvold
On 5/12/07, Matthias Haegele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am not sure if the botnet plugin would catch these, but are you using the botnet plugin at all and sare-rules (www.rulesemporium.com). I installed the botnet plugin today, but it's not going to help anyway.. The IPs these are coming fro

Re: Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-12 Thread Jason Frisvold
On 5/12/07, Faisal N Jawdat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On May 11, 2007, at 10:54 PM, Jason Frisvold wrote: > It appears that each mail is sent by a unique IP, so it doesn't look > like a simple firewall rule will stop this. Is every single message coming from a unique IP, or is it just that they

Re: Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-12 Thread Matthias Haegele
Jason Frisvold schrieb: Greetings, I'm seeing incoming spam at a rate of 2-3 a minute per user and I'm having trouble properly identifying these as spam with spamassassin. Or, alternatively, blocking them. Does anyone have any idea how I can trigger on these and block them? Return-Path: <[E

Re: Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-11 Thread Faisal N Jawdat
On May 11, 2007, at 10:54 PM, Jason Frisvold wrote: It appears that each mail is sent by a unique IP, so it doesn't look like a simple firewall rule will stop this. Is every single message coming from a unique IP, or is it just that they're widely distributed? -faisal

Massive Spam Attack?

2007-05-11 Thread Jason Frisvold
Greetings, I'm seeing incoming spam at a rate of 2-3 a minute per user and I'm having trouble properly identifying these as spam with spamassassin. Or, alternatively, blocking them. It appears that each mail is sent by a unique IP, so it doesn't look like a simple firewall rule will stop this.