Incidents
Massive SPAM Increase Oct 06 2006 11:02PM
Alex (incidents alex gotdns org) (2 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase Oct 09 2006 05:01AM
jim barchuk (jb jbarchuk com) (1 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase Oct 09 2006 11:00PM
Graeme Fowler (G E Fowler lboro ac uk)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase Oct 08 2006 09:30PM
Kurt Seifried (bt seifried org) (1 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 01:15AM
Vini Engel (vini fugspbr org) (1 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 04:06AM
Kurt Seifried (bt seifried org) (1 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 05:06AM
Vini Engel (vini fugspbr org) (1 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 06:33PM
Paul Schmehl (pauls utdallas edu) (3 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 14 2006 02:46AM
Valdis Kletnieks vt edu (1 replies)
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 14 2006 03:52AM
Paul Schmehl (pauls utdallas edu) (3 replies)
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 17 2006 01:20AM
Jamie Riden (jamesr europe com)
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 16 2006 05:04PM
benfell raven cybernude org (2 replies)
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 16 2006 05:38PM
Paul Schmehl (pauls utdallas edu) (1 replies)
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 17 2006 01:44AM
gabriel rosenkoetter (gr eclipsed net)
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 16 2006 05:29PM
Valdis Kletnieks vt edu
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 14 2006 05:44AM
Valdis Kletnieks vt edu (1 replies)
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 14 2006 05:17PM
Paul Schmehl (pauls utdallas edu) (2 replies)
Re: ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 17 2006 01:59AM
Dude VanWinkle (dudevanwinkle gmail com)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase Oct 16 2006 03:57PM
gabriel rosenkoetter (gr eclipsed net) (1 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase Oct 17 2006 01:33AM
Jamie Riden (jamesr europe com)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 11:09PM
Graeme Fowler (G E Fowler lboro ac uk) (1 replies)
Re: Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 11:43PM
Luke Burton (luke burton echidna id au) (1 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase Oct 10 2006 07:44PM
Tillmann Werner (tillmann werner gmx de)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 09:29PM
Tim (tim-forensics sentinelchicken org) (2 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 10:33PM
Paul Schmehl (pauls utdallas edu) (2 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 11:48PM
Tim (tim-forensics sentinelchicken org)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 10:47PM
Nathaniel Hall (nathaniel d hall gmail com)
Sounds a lot like SpamAssassin.

Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Monday, October 09, 2006 17:29:23 -0400 Tim
> <tim-forensics (at) sentinelchicken (dot) org [email concealed]> wrote:
>
>>> Its purpose is to reject *all* mail from bogus MTAs - dialups,
>>> misconifigured servers, MTAs that aren't registered in the domains' DNS
>>> as a "legal" MX, MTAs that don't reverse properly, etc., etc. If the
>>> email is forged in any way, it will never make it to DATA.
>>
>>
>> That's great, except it makes the internet more expensive for the little
>> guy. If you're trying to run a non-spamming personal mailserver off of
>> a consumer DSL or cable line, you can get screwed by others' policies
>> like this because you may not have control over your PTR records or how
>> your ISP lists you as a non-MTA with other organizations.
>>
>> Sure, argue that the little guy should just shell out for a better line,
>> but if he could, he wouldn't be the little guy.
>>
> It wouldn't hurt to actually read how it works before criticizing it.
>
> Policyd-weight (the name implies what it does) provides a weighted score
> to each "bad" thing an MTA does. The *cumulative* score is what
> matters. It also *subtracts* points for good things that an MTA does.
> So, the situation you describe should not be a problem.
>
> If you want to test that, send a test message to geek (at) stovebolt (dot) com [email concealed], and
> see if it gets rejected. If it does, look at the headers to see what it
> did.

--
Nathaniel Hall, GSEC GCFW GCIA GCIH

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
This List Sponsored by: Black Hat

Attend the Black Hat Briefings & Training USA, July 29-August 3 in Las Vegas.
World renowned security experts reveal tomorrow's threats today. Free of
vendor pitches, the Briefings are designed to be pragmatic regardless of your
security environment. Featuring 36 hands-on training courses and 10 conference
tracks, networking opportunities with over 2,500 delegates from 40+ nations.

http://www.blackhat.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

[ reply ]
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 10:28PM
Brent Kearney (brent kearneys ca) (1 replies)
Re: Massive SPAM Increase {-2.6} {-2.6} Oct 09 2006 10:38PM
Paul Schmehl (pauls utdallas edu)


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus