On 13.09.07 08:56, John D. Hardin wrote:
> I just got one and it sailed through SA here, too, as it had a 400+Kb
> JPEG attachment. It seems they are attacking via SA message size
> limits now.
we took control over some servers with 512KiB limit on SA and I was already
thinking about doing it... w
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:57:23AM -0700, Loren Wilton wrote:
> >Guess that's not a throwaway dial up connection then. Wow. I'd think
> >that size would make the cost/benefit analysis skew even further to making
> >a spam run unprofitable as they'd be sending so many fewer before they're
> >shut
Guess that's not a throwaway dial up connection then. Wow. I'd think
that size would make the cost/benefit analysis skew even further to making
a spam run unprofitable as they'd be sending so many fewer before they're
shut down.
Does anyone actually shut down zombies these days? That might me
Guess that's not a throwaway dial up connection then. Wow. I'd think
that size would make the cost/benefit analysis skew even further to making
a spam run unprofitable as they'd be sending so many fewer before they're
shut down.
--
Rick Zeman
Manager of Information Technology
Melwood Horticultu
I just got one and it sailed through SA here, too, as it had a 400+Kb
JPEG attachment. It seems they are attacking via SA message size
limits now.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
key: 0
