Discuss August 2004

discuss@lists.surbl.org

56 participants
207 discussions

{Spam?} RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Pesky Pron Spam
by Rob McEwen 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

I said: >However, I might integrate this domain >list "*namefromlist*.org" as a factor >in a compound rule. To be clear, I was referring to only the original list of 36 names, NOT the compiled list of 1300+ domain names. Rob McEwen

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Pesky Pron Spam
by Chris Santerre 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Steven Champeon [mailto:schampeo@hesketh.com] >Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:48 AM >To: 'SURBL Discussion list' >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Pesky Pron Spam > > >on Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:49:39AM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote: >> Look at these things they have in common. Need to look at >rawbody code. >> >> alt=3d >> =2e(org|gif|htm) #split into 3 >> name=3dgenerator >> ==.HTM >> bgColor=3d >> face=3d >> src=3d >> border=3d >> title=3d >> face=3d >> <STYLE></STYLE> >> >> Needs to be one big meta rule > >...that will also catch pretty much every last MSHTML email ever sent. >That's just base64-encoded HTML, Chris. The empty STYLE element may >be unique, but I doubt it. > >I first successfully quarantined these by searching on > ><BIG><STRONG> >and ><STRONG><BIG> > >in the body. That should be sufficient without FPs. But these >others are >common enough that I wouldn't want to risk it, even in a big compound >rule. > >-- LOL yeah now that I look at it.......yup. Silly! I should never try to pattern match without coffee. Of course this was off the top of my head without any testing. The SARE ninjas would have flogged me good on that one :) --Chris

1 0

{Spam?} RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Pesky Pron Spam
by Rob McEwen 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

Raymond said: >>But obviously is doesn't work.... The ones you >>mentioned are listed in 3 SURBL lists... you >>should be able to catch them up pretty easily. Yes, I am able to catch these easily now! Whenever I try to RESEND this through my filter, YES YES YES, they ARE easily caught by my SURBL filtering. My SURBL filter is working GREAT and the fact that these are NOW caught by SURBL is completely irrelevant to my original question. The problem is that this particular spammer is very, very proliferate and I keep getting the razer's edge of his first new spams using new domains that are not yet blocked by SURBL. These particular spams are also very sneaky about not allowing "pron keywords" into the body of the message. The fact that they are blocked by SURBL soon afterwards is besides the point. I'm simply looking for any suggestions or pointers for rules-based filtering which might catch this particular "series" of spam. Rob McEwen

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Pesky Pron Spam
by Rob McEwen 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

(I sent this again because I discovered that my original message when only to Raymond and not to the list) Raymond, Recall that I mentioned that I'm NOT a SpamAssassin user. Also, I am currently NOT using any Bayesian filtering... (although I do have plans to eventually add this as an additional layer of filtering). (Before you laugh, I would say that the filtering that I do use is very comparable to SpamAssassin when looking at what how effective it is against those e-mails which make it past SURBL and RBL.) Nevertheless, I can't answer your two questions because they are not applicable. Thanks for trying to help! :) Any other thoughts/suggestions? Rob McEwen PowerView Systems rob(a)PowerViewSystems.com (478) 475-9032 -----Original Message----- From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 9:08 AM To: rob(a)pvsys.com; SURBL Discussion list Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Pesky Pron Spam Importance: High Hi! > I have noticed some patterns in the e-mails. For example, they all > have three images stacked vertically. Therefore, I think that I should > be able to catch these with the right formulation of rules within my > linguistic filter. > > You can find the raw contents of my most recent two of these as > follows: > > http://www.pvsys.com/pn01.txt > > http://www.pvsys.com/pn02.txt What are the SA scores you got on these? Might tell much more. Could be your bayesian filters are doing this. Bye, Raymond.

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Pesky Pron Spam
by Raymond Dijkxhoorn 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

Hi! > Recall that I mentioned that I'm NOT a SpamAssassin user. Also, I am > currently NOT using any Bayesian filtering... (although I do have plans to > eventually add this as an additional layer of filtering). Ok, i overlooked that i think. :) > (Before you laugh, I would say that the filtering that I do use is very > comparable to SpamAssassin when looking at what how effective it is against > those e-mails which make it past SURBL and RBL.) But obviously is doesnt work. I have a lot of those, with different txt, but the same URLs. The ones you mentioned are listed in 3 SURBL lists, do you should be able to catch them up pretty easilly. > > http://www.pvsys.com/pn01.txt > > http://www.pvsys.com/pn02.txt We only provide the lists, i guess you have to look on the 'thing' you are using whats going wrong. ;) Bye, Raymond.

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] mimedefang + spamcopuri = "timeout before dataread" in syslog
by Jason M. Burnett 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] > > > My hunch is that it could be intermittent DNS timeouts. > > We're trying to get all the public name servers switched > over to rbldnsd, since it's much faster than BIND. That > may help. > > Can someone look through the sources and see how this > message comes up: "timeout before data read" ? I *think* it happens when a scanner run by Mimedefang (spamassassin, in this case) takes too long to return. I get the impression from the man page that this timeout is ten seconds, but I'm not sure. Anyone confirm? I took a shot at bumping that to 30, so I'll know in a couple days if that fixed it. -- Jason This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

1 0

[SURBL-Discuss] mimedefang + spamcopuri = "timeout before data read" in syslog
by Jason M. Burnett 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

Every time that happens (it's not every email, but 100 to 300 a day out of a total of 10,000), the email goes on to be delivered without being tagged by spamassassin. I wasn't getting that message in syslog at all before setting up spamcopuri. Is there a known fix to this weirdness? -- Jason This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

2 1

bravejournal.com FP on OB.
by Patrik Nilsson 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

bravejournal.com is listed on OB. One single NANAS report that mention bravejournal.com found when searching Google Groups. 399 non-NANAS postings that mention bravejournal.com found when searching Google Groups... bravejournal.com is blogging/journaling community run by bravenet.com which claims millions of members. bravenet.com mail servers send out a newsletter with a monthly senderbase magnitued of 5.4. Those servers are not listed on any major RBL. Patrik

2 1

Questionable listing?
by Bill Landry 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

Found this URI listed in a lockergnome list mail: www.desktoppipeline.com and it was tagged by OB. However, it seems like a legit TechWeb site that provides newsletter services. Bill

2 1

RFC: Lowering TTLs
by Jeff Chan 10 Aug '04

10 Aug '04

We would like to drop the TTL on the SURBL zone files that had 6 and 8 hour TTLs down to 1 hour in order to get new entries active sooner. We have not tested this to see what effect it would have on name server traffic. Does anyone have any comments or concerns about this? One hour would still be longer than the default 35 minute TTL that rbldnsd uses. (We would still like to separately experiment with range of different TTLs to see where lowering them causes traffic to increase a lot. We would then pick values longer than that. That optimization can probably be done independently.) Comments? Jeff C.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
...
21
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss August 2004