On (18/10/03 20:17), David Crane wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 October 2003 06:56 am, Clive Menzies wrote:
> > I was finding it virtually impossible to work because of the
> > volume of these MS Swen virus emails. So I installed mailfilter
> > (woody) and fetchmail, set up my mailfilterrc as per the atta
On Tuesday 14 October 2003 06:56 am, Clive Menzies wrote:
> I was finding it virtually impossible to work because of the
> volume of these MS Swen virus emails. So I installed mailfilter
> (woody) and fetchmail, set up my mailfilterrc as per the attached
> sample and invoke mailfilter from fetchma
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 at 04:11 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] penned:
> "Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 14 Oct 2003
> 10:06:16 -0600:
>> Yup, welcome to the sad club. If it makes you feel better, it's not
>> just debian-user; it seems like activity in any mailing list or
>> usenet group
"Monique Y. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:06:16 -0600:
> Yup, welcome to the sad club. If it makes you feel better, it's not
> just debian-user; it seems like activity in any mailing list or usenet
> group makes you vulnerable.
>
> My current setup seems to work:
>
> 1)
Jeff Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:20:09 -0400:
> On Tuesday 14 October 2003 6:45 am, Andrew Hayes wrote:
> >Jeff Elkins wrote:
> >> Well, hell.
> >>
> >> I set up a new address (for family) on my server and inadvertently used it
> >> Sunday in a reply to debian-user. It's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 01:20:09PM -0400, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> It's pretty bad. I'm doing the fetchmail/mailfilter/spamassassin
> dance, so my post was mainly just a whine. Exposing a "secure"
> address was a stupid mistake on my part :(
Let this be a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 06:22:41AM -0400, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> Well, hell.
>
> I set up a new address (for family) on my server and inadvertently used it
> Sunday in a reply to debian-user. It's now being flooded with email viruses
> and spam.
I've
Derrick 'dman' Hudson([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
>
> For a sense of how effective these defenses are, here's some recent
> statistics from pflogsumm. I'm not showing the past couple days
> because the numbers will be skewed due to downtime of the primary mx
> of a domain I relay
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 01:20:09PM -0400, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> I wonder if anyone has thought of obfustcating email addresses on the list's
> web archives? I wonder how many 'bots regularly scrape it for addresses?
All the time. And so far nothing has come of it.
--
Steve C. Lamb
On Tuesday 14 October 2003 1:20 pm, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 06:22:41AM -0400, Jeff Elkins wrote:
>| Well, hell.
>|
>| I set up a new address (for family) on my server and inadvertently used it
>| Sunday in a reply to debian-user. It's now being flooded with email
>| vi
Op di 14-10-2003, om 19:36 schreef Jamin W. Collins:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 01:20:09PM -0400, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if anyone has thought of obfustcating email addresses on the
> > list's web archives? I wonder how many 'bots regularly scrape it for
> > addresses?
>
> Yes, they
Jeff Elkins writes:
> I wonder if anyone has thought of obfustcating email addresses on the
> list's web archives?
It has been discussed endlessly. Remember that the list is mirrored on a
Usenet newsgroup and any addresses posted to it end up in innumerable
Outlook address books.
--
John Hasler
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 01:20:09PM -0400, Jeff Elkins wrote:
>
> I wonder if anyone has thought of obfustcating email addresses on the
> list's web archives? I wonder how many 'bots regularly scrape it for
> addresses?
Yes, they have, and it's been pointed out that most any obfuscation that
doesn
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 06:22:41AM -0400, Jeff Elkins wrote:
| Well, hell.
|
| I set up a new address (for family) on my server and inadvertently used it
| Sunday in a reply to debian-user. It's now being flooded with email viruses
| and spam.
What? Spam? What's that?
Only around 100 spam pe
On Tuesday 14 October 2003 6:45 am, Andrew Hayes wrote:
>Jeff Elkins wrote:
>> Well, hell.
>>
>> I set up a new address (for family) on my server and inadvertently used it
>> Sunday in a reply to debian-user. It's now being flooded with email
>> viruses and spam.
>
>You aren't the only one, since s
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 at 10:22 GMT, Jeff Elkins penned:
> Well, hell.
>
> I set up a new address (for family) on my server and inadvertently
> used it Sunday in a reply to debian-user. It's now being flooded with
> email viruses and spam.
>
Yup, welcome to the sad club. If it makes you feel bette
On (14/10/03 11:45), Andrew Hayes wrote:
> Jeff Elkins wrote:
> >Well, hell.
> >
> >I set up a new address (for family) on my server and inadvertently used it
> >Sunday in a reply to debian-user. It's now being flooded with email
> >viruses and spam.
>
> You aren't the only one, since signing up
Jeff Elkins wrote:
Well, hell.
I set up a new address (for family) on my server and inadvertently used it
Sunday in a reply to debian-user. It's now being flooded with email viruses
and spam.
You aren't the only one, since signing up I've been blasted like
buggering regardless of Mozillas spam
18 matches
Mail list logo
