on Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:51:06AM +1000, Andrew Pollock ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 01:45:18PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> >
> > I think virus scanners are in a different class, though. Mailing list
> > software isn't designed to recognize viruses, while virus scan
Andrew writes:
> The (granted, commercial) SMTP virus scanners that I've had experience
> with don't allow you to modify the notification behavior on a per virus
> signature basis, it's either all on or all off.
The signature file sent out by the vendor should tell the scanner whether
or not to se
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 01:45:18PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> I think virus scanners are in a different class, though. Mailing list
> software isn't designed to recognize viruses, while virus scanners are.
> It's disgustingly incompetent to recognize a mail as Sobig.F, which is
> known to
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:55:35PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> How many were challenges from mailing list software? Yes, another class of
> software that automatically issues challenges (specifically, to new
> subscriptions and to non-list members if the list is closed). So I guess you
> should
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 07:12:47PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> Hmm, how about giving tmda its own special header so we can auto-filter
> out messages from people who use C-R systems?
It adds itself to X-Delivery-Agent, so it's not hard to filter out. I've
started capturing C-R signatures where I
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 09:20:53AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> The comparison to mailing list software makes no sense.
Maybe not in the context of viruses, but for the "Joe Job" problem it does.
Viruses can and should be filtered out before they reach the C-R system.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:12, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:37:57AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > If someone is to Joe-Job me then I'd rather that mailing lists bounce the
> > messages, if it gets bad I could filter out all mailing list messages
> > temporarily.
>
> Hmm, how about
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:20:49PM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:03:37AM -0700, Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > Also, I don't have any hard data to support this, but it's obvious to
> > me that the volume of mail generated by virus scanners in response
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:47, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 09:20:53AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The comparison to mailing list software makes no sense.
>
> Maybe not in the context of viruses, but for the "Joe Job" problem it does.
If someone is to Joe-Job me then I'd rather th
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 11:37:57AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> If someone is to Joe-Job me then I'd rather that mailing lists bounce the
> messages, if it gets bad I could filter out all mailing list messages
> temporarily.
Hmm, how about giving tmda its own special header so we can auto-filte
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 07:55, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > My own inbox supports this statement. 140 responses to Sobig.F mails,
> > of which 43 are virus or other content-based autoresponders, and 97
> > being delivery failure messages or other autoresponders (e.g.: ISP help
> > desk).
>
> How many were
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 09:20:49PM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> The virus responses are irresponsible, and have been for almost two years
> as the number of sender-spoofing emails has grown.
BTW, amavisd-new has
# Treat envelope sender address as unreliable and don't send sender
# notification
on Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 09:20:53AM +1000, Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 07:55, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > > My own inbox supports this statement. 140 responses to Sobig.F mails,
> > > of which 43 are virus or other content-based autoresponders, and 97
> > > being del
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 01:51:58PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > It's a bit extreme but I'm sick of deleting such messages, especially in
> > light of the Blaster worm.
>
> Not extreme at all.
I imagine there are some legitimate people I might receive emails from,
reply to them and never know i
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:59:04PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 01:51:58PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > It's a bit extreme but I'm sick of deleting such messages, especially in
> > > light of the Blaster worm.
> >
> > Not extreme at all.
>
> I imagine there are some le
on Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:03:37AM -0700, Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Also, I don't have any hard data to support this, but it's obvious to
> me that the volume of mail generated by virus scanners in response to
> Sobig.f eclipses the volume of TMDA challenges by at least a factor o
on Thu, Aug 28, 2003, Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> So, I guess we should add virus scanners to the list of verboten software.
How about we qualify that; "virus scanners that stupidly send email" ?
P.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The IWETHEY project: http://www.iwethey.org
pgp0MEXmH8lzK.p
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:03:37AM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Also, I don't have any hard data to support this, but it's obvious to me
> that the volume of mail generated by virus scanners in response to Sobig.f
> eclipses the volume of TMDA challenges by at least a factor of 10. So far,
> I h
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:30:05AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been quarantined!
> >
> > You only need to do this once, but this time, you must verify
> > that you are a human.
>
> I almost wonder if someone
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:03:37AM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:20:52AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:39:43 -0700, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >Yes, it does present a very good example of poorly written C-R software.
> > >Paul sho
Le jeu 28/08/2003 à 10:03, Adam McKenna a écrit :
> > In which way would have TMDA avoided sending a challenge to the
> > header-from: of a sobig.f instance?
>
> TMDA doesn't send challenges to From: addresses, it sends them to the
> envelope sender (Return-Path) address.
Nice, but sobig.f also f
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:20:52AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:39:43 -0700, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Yes, it does present a very good example of poorly written C-R software.
> >Paul should switch to TMDA.
>
> In which way would have TMDA avoided sending a
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:39:43 -0700, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yes, it does present a very good example of poorly written C-R software.
>Paul should switch to TMDA.
In which way would have TMDA avoided sending a challenge to the
header-from: of a sobig.f instance?
Greetings
Marc
--
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:30:05AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been quarantined!
>
> You only need to do this once, but this time, you must verify
> that you are a human.
I almost wonder if someone sent this intentionally in light of the
TDMA bug thread
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:26:34PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:30:05AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been quarantined!
> >
> > You only need to do this once, but this time, you must verify
> > that you are a human.
>
> I alm
Your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been quarantined!
You only need to do this once, but this time, you must verify
that you are a human.
This is an automated response send by the MEI Whitelist system.
At paul's request, this system blocks and quarantines email from
senders that are not on a
26 matches
Mail list logo
