Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-25 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 24.07.07 08:57, Kelson wrote: > Over here we use MIMEDefang as the glue to tie SpamAssassin, Clamd, etc. > together. MD filters are very customizable (if you can write it in > Perl, you can put it in a MD filter). After our filter calls clamd, we > check the name of the matching signature ag

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-24 Thread Kelson
John Rudd wrote: Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote: I have a 'political problem' with that. We 'drop' knowv viruses into a quarantine directory without further notice, and only once in years somebody complained and wanted his virus back :-) You could even do it as 5 different instances (1 for base clama

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-24 Thread Jonas Eckerman
Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote: Did somebody of you create an extra 'instance' of clamad-filter to fight spam with spam-sigs only, without scaning for virus-sigs? I'm running two instances of clamd in our mail gateway. One instance has the stock signatures (minus phishing sigs) and is used before Sp

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread jdow
You mean my not smoking and never have smoked status gets me drummed out of the neo-con corps? What will those who know me and think I am somewhere off to the right of would be astonished. But then my friends on the right figure I am quite "squishy" as a "conservative." Ah well. I grew up outside

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread jdow
From: "Dave Pooser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "some just need" -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come across ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above, there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do another way. In fact, nobody _NEEDS_ email,

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread jdow
From: "John Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 22.07.07 18:47, John Rudd wrote: As I've said for years: we should just ban attachments. They're not really useful for anything that can't be done a better way. Which only leaves them being useful for attacks of one for

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread John Rudd
Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote: On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote: ... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines every attachment anyway it is no additional load. In fact, due to the messages n

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread John Rudd
Per Jessen wrote: John Rudd wrote: "some just need" -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come across ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above, there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do another way. That is very similar to saying that

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Sven Schuster
hi, On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:13:22PM +0200, Matthias Keller told us: > Using amavisd-new... actually, with amavisd-new, you can treat virus names in a special way via regexes, so that it doesn't get recognized as a virus, but instead you can add extra points to the spamassassin score. This fea

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread David B Funk
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote: > > >... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last > > week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines > > every attachment anyway it is no additional loa

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Matthias Keller
Chr. v. Stuckrad wrote: On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote: ... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines every attachment anyway it is no additional load. In fact, due to the message

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Chr. v. Stuckrad
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, John Scully wrote: >... After adding the sanesecurity sigs to clamd last > week not one PDF has made it through. And since clamd unpacks and examines > every attachment anyway it is no additional load. In fact, due to the > messages not hitting SA it pr

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Per Jessen
John Rudd wrote: > "some just need" -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come > across > ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above, > there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do > another way. That is very similar to saying that a person doe

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread John Scully
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 5:15 AM Subject: Re: Now its zip attachments ^^ > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Robert Schetterer schrieb: > > Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb: > >>> Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote: > >

RE: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Thomas Raef
Wait, would that ban on smoking include cigars too? Are regular neo-cons okay? Please delete. -Original Message- From: Jerry Glomph Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 10:32 AM To: John Rudd Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: Now its zip attachments

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Gene Heskett
On Monday 23 July 2007, Jerry Glomph Black wrote: >I would start by banning Outlook along with attachments. >Why stop there, ban -all- Microsoft products from the internet. > >Next, I would ban smoking, unhealthy foods, and moronic neo-cons. > >Come on, this is Earth we are talking about. > >The wh

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Jim Maul
John Rudd wrote: Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 22.07.07 18:47, John Rudd wrote: As I've said for years: we should just ban attachments. They're not really useful for anything that can't be done a better way. Which only leaves them being useful for attacks of one form or another. some p

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Jerry Glomph Black
I would start by banning Outlook along with attachments. Why stop there, ban -all- Microsoft products from the internet. Next, I would ban smoking, unhealthy foods, and moronic neo-cons. Come on, this is Earth we are talking about. The whole point of SpamAssassin is to attempt to make ordinary

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Dave Pooser
> "some just need" -- no, I can't agree there. I have yet to come across > ANY situation where a person _NEEDED_ attachments. As I said above, > there's nothing that can be done with attachments that you can't do > another way. In fact, nobody _NEEDS_ email, because we could just FTP text files

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread John Rudd
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 22.07.07 18:47, John Rudd wrote: As I've said for years: we should just ban attachments. They're not really useful for anything that can't be done a better way. Which only leaves them being useful for attacks of one form or another. some people just want, s

RE: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Michael Scheidell
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 3:03 AM > To: Hendrik Helmvoigt > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Now its zip attachments ^^ > > 1) Spammers just want to exasperate

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Robert Schetterer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Schetterer schrieb: > Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb: >>> Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote: This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents, but this time neatly packed into a zipfile: I'm really excited whats go

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Robert Schetterer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matus UHLAR - fantomas schrieb: >> Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote: >>> This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents, >>> but this time neatly packed into a zipfile: >>> >>> I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd file

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote: > >This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents, > >but this time neatly packed into a zipfile: > > > >I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd files embedded > >in pdf and then rar'ed. > > > >And i'd still like to meet the person

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-23 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 03:35 +0200, Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote: > This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents, > but this time neatly packed into a zipfile: > > I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd files embedded > in pdf and then rar'ed. > > And i'd sti

RE: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-22 Thread Skip Brott
Not sure I agree about banning all attachments, but I would like to ban all email with fonts as BIG as people can find and those which use any kind of background stationary.

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-22 Thread Jerry Durand
On Sun, July 22, 2007 6:47 pm, John Rudd wrote: > For multi-lingual reasons, just allow pain ascii or unicode, and throw > away any messages with any body types other than that. I'd like to ban all those people who write in the tiniest font they can find. Then there's my one brother who always ha

Re: Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-22 Thread John Rudd
Hendrik Helmvoigt wrote: This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents, but this time neatly packed into a zipfile: I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd files embedded in pdf and then rar'ed. And i'd still like to meet the person that goes through a

Now its zip attachments ^^

2007-07-22 Thread Hendrik Helmvoigt
This night it seems like we're beeing spammed again by xml documents, but this time neatly packed into a zipfile: I'm really excited whats going to happen next. Maybe psd files embedded in pdf and then rar'ed. And i'd still like to meet the person that goes through all that trouble to read t