Search Results

Search found 2676 results on 108 pages for 'spam blocking'.

Page 16/108 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >

  • iptables, blocking large numbers of IP Addresses

    - by Twirrim
    I'm looking to block IP addresses in a relatively automated fashion if they look to be 'screen scraping' content from websites that we host. In the past this was achieved by some ingenious perl scripts and OpenBSD's pf. pf is great in that you can provide it nice tables of IP addresses and it will efficiently handle blocking based on them. However for various reasons (before my time) they made the decision to switch to CentOS. iptables doesn't natively provide the ability to block large numbers of addresses (I'm told it wasn't unusual to be blocking 5000+), and I'm a bit cautious over adding that many rules into an iptable. ipt_recent would be awesome for doing this, plus it provides a lot of flexibility for just severely slowing down access, but there is a bug in the CentOS kernel that is stopping me from using it (reported, but awaiting fix). Using ipset would entail compiling a more up-to-date version of iptables than comes with CentOS which whilst I'm perfectly capable of doing it, I'd rather not do from a patching, security and consistency perspective. Other than those two it looks like nfblock is a reasonable alternative. Is anyone aware of other ways of achieving this? Are my concerns about several thousand IP addresses in iptables as individual rules unfounded?

    Read the article

  • Blocking HTTPS and P2P Traffic

    - by Genboy
    I have a Debian server running at the gateway level on a LAN. This runs squid for creating block lists of websites - for eg. blocking social networking on the LAN. Also uses iptables. I am able to do a lot of things with squid & iptables, but a few things seem difficult to achieve. 1) If I block facebook through their http url, people can still access https://www.facebook.com because squid doesn't go through https traffic by default. However, if the users set the gateway IP address as proxy on their web browser, then https is also blocked. So I can do one thing - using iptables drop all outgoing 443 traffic, so that people are forced to set proxy on their browser in order to browse any HTTPS traffic. However, is there a better solution for this. 2) As the number of blocked urls increase in squid, I am planning to integrate squidguard. However, the good squidguard lists are not free for commercial use. Anyone knows of a good squidguard list which is free. 3) Block yahoo messenger, gtalk etc. There are so many ports on which these Instant Messenger softwares work. You need to drop lots of outgoing ports in iptables. However, new ports get added, so you have to keep adding them. And even if your list of ports is current, people can still use the web version of gtalk etc. 4) Blocking P2P. Haven't been able to figure out how to do this till now.

    Read the article

  • hosting company blocking google bots and crawlers [closed]

    - by Jayapal Chandran
    Hi, I am having a site for the past three years and it is very active for the past two years. Until not the site is working well and also now but not after the hosting company blocked google bots. Many pages appeared in the first page of the google search. After they started blocking i couldn't see my links in the first page instead they appeared after 5 pages or they did not appear at all. Will hosting companies be so stupid that they block and dont mention it to their users. They want to protect themselves by making the websites at stake. I display google ads and not this month i got only half for this 10 days. I have made requests to other hosting companies like blue host and monster host that i wan to transfer my domain by making a condition that the will not block google bots which stops the business indirectly. so any kind of help will be helpful. how can i claim what i lost from the hosting company. what other hosting companies consider the users (by informing the events like changing the IP or blocking google bot.) It was really working hard to bring up my site but these people just crashed down my site in a few days. :-(

    Read the article

  • iptables, blocking large numbers of IP Addresses

    - by Twirrim
    I'm looking to block IP addresses in a relatively automated fashion if they look to be 'screen scraping' content from websites that we host. In the past this was achieved by some ingenious perl scripts and OpenBSD's pf. pf is great in that you can provide it nice tables of IP addresses and it will efficiently handle blocking based on them. However for various reasons (before my time) they made the decision to switch to CentOS. iptables doesn't natively provide the ability to block large numbers of addresses (I'm told it wasn't unusual to be blocking 5000+), and I'm a bit cautious over adding that many rules into an iptable. ipt_recent would be awesome for doing this, plus it provides a lot of flexibility for just severely slowing down access, but there is a bug in the CentOS kernel that is stopping me from using it (reported, but awaiting fix). Using ipset would entail compiling a more up-to-date version of iptables than comes with CentOS which whilst I'm perfectly capable of doing it, I'd rather not do from a patching, security and consistency perspective. Other than those two it looks like nfblock is a reasonable alternative. Is anyone aware of other ways of achieving this? Are my concerns about several thousand IP addresses in iptables as individual rules unfounded?

    Read the article

  • Forefront 2010 Antispam vs Exchange 2010 Antispam?

    - by Jon
    They look pretty similar, do they work together or independently? For example you have content filtering in Forefront where you can specify SCL barriers, just like in Exchange. However theres no where to specify the Spam mailbox. So will the spam mailbox still be used if I configure this in Forefront?

    Read the article

  • Alternative SMTP-Proxy

    - by Uwe
    Currently we are using bitdefender for mail servers to scan for spam, viruses and content filtering. We chose bitdefender as it receives all incoming emails and forwards them to our internal windows IIS SMTP-service. Bitdefender is also the protection for our SMTP to not be used as spam relay as it allows certain IPs to send from only. The question is: are there any alternatives to bitdefenser for mailserver?

    Read the article

  • Exchange 2010 email spoofing prevention

    - by holian
    Masters, Unfortunately we got some spam mail which seems to be coming from our own domain. I found some article which all says to remove Anonymous login from internet receive connector (http://exchangepedia.com/2008/09/how-to-prevent-annoying-spam-from-your-own-domain.html) I think i something misunderstood about those articles, because if i remove the Anonymous connection e-mails did not receive from external address (like gmail - Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 530 5.7.1 Client was not authenticated) Some pictures about our configuration:

    Read the article

  • Calculating spam probability in python

    - by Hobhouse
    I am building a website in python/django and want to predict wether a user submission is valid or wether it is spam. Users have an accept rate on their submissions, like this website has. Users can moderate other users' submissions; and these moderations are later metamoderated by an admin. Given this: user A with an submission accept rate of 60% submits something. user B moderates A's post as a valid submission. However, his moderations are often wrong, and his moderations' accept rate is a mere 30%. user C moderates A's post as spam. User C is usually right. His moderations' accept rate is 80%. How can I predict the chance of A's post being spam?

    Read the article

  • 10035 error on a blocking socket

    - by Andrew
    Does anyone have any idea what could cause a 10035 error (EWOULDBLOCK) when reading on a blocking socket with a timeout? This is under Windows XP using the .NET framework version 3.5 socket library. I've never managed to get this myself, but one of my colleagues is getting it all the time. He's sending reasonably large amounts of data to a much slower device and then waiting for a response, which often gives a 10035 error. I'm wondering if there could be issues with TCP buffers filling up, but in that case I would expect the read to wait or timeount. The socket is definitely blocking, not non-blocking.

    Read the article

  • Calculating spam probability

    - by Hobhouse
    I am building a website in python/django and want to predict wether a user submission is valid or wether it is spam. Users have an accept rate on their submissions, like this website has. Users can moderate other users' submissions; and these moderations are later metamoderated by an admin. Given this: user A with an submission accept rate of 60% submits something. user B moderates A's post as a valid submission. However, his moderations are often wrong, and his moderations' accept rate is a mere 30%. user C moderates A's post as spam. User C is usually right. His moderations' accept rate is 80%. How can I predict the chance of A's post being spam?

    Read the article

  • A non-blocking server with java.io

    - by Jon
    Everybody knows that java IO is blocking, and java NIO is non-blocking. In IO you will have to use the thread per client pattern, in NIO you can use one thread for all clients. Now my question follows: is it possible to make a non-blocking design using only the Java IO api. (not NIO) I was thinking about a pattern like this (obviously very simplified); List<Socket> li; for (Socket s : li) { InputStream in = s.getInputStream(); byte[] data = in.available(); in.read(data); // processData(data); (decoding packets, encoding outgoing packets } Also note that the client will always be ready for reading data. What are your opinions on this? Will this be suitable for a server that should at least hold a few hundred of clients without major performance issues?

    Read the article

  • Roundcube in different server as the mail server how to use mark/not mark as spam

    - by pl1nk
    Legend Roundcube IMAP client located in server A Mail server with spamassassin support is located Server B In order to use the mark/not mark as spam functionality per user a roundcube plugin requires access to spamassassin which is located in a different server (Server B). I guess there should be an option for spamassassin to connect to a remotely database and submit/grab results there. How can I achieve this?

    Read the article

  • RabbitMQ and persistence (blocking writes?)

    - by daharon
    I want to create a RabbitMQ server on a virtual machine (VMware) to be used in production. It will contain persistent queues. I'm wondering if it is a bad idea to store the server on a NAS that's accessed over NFS. Basically my questions are: Will RabbitMQ's writes be blocking? Will the entire queue's operation halt on a write? How much performance degradation should I expect when persisting over NFS?

    Read the article

  • Email postfix marked as spam by google

    - by Rodrigo Ferrari
    Hello friends, I searched about this question, found some few answers but no idea how to fix, the problem is that I realy dumb with all this! I configured the postfix and done everything how the install how to told. It send the email, but get marked as spam! The header is this one: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.223.86.203 with SMTP id t11cs837410fal; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:02:21 -0800 (PST) X-pstn-nxpr: disp=neutral, [email protected] X-pstn-nxp: bodyHash=9c6d0c64fa3a4d663c9968e9545c47d77ae0242e, headerHash=1ab8726bd17a23218309165bd20fe6e0911627cd, keyName=4, rcptHash=178929be6ed8451d98a4df01a463784e6c59b3b4, sourceip=174.121.4.154, version=1 Received: by 10.100.190.13 with SMTP id n13mr537609anf.76.1294833740396; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:02:20 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from psmtp.com ([74.125.245.168]) by mx.google.com with SMTP id w2si1297960anw.132.2011.01.12.04.02.19; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:02:20 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.121.4.154 as permitted sender) client-ip=174.121.4.154; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 174.121.4.154 as permitted sender) [email protected] Received: from source ([174.121.4.154]) by na3sys010amx168.postini.com ([74.125.244.10]) with SMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:02:19 GMT Received: from localhost (server [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by brasilyacht.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C121290142; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:50:29 -0200 (BRST) From: YachtBrasil <[email protected]> Reply-To: Vendas <[email protected]> Cc: YachtBrasil <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: teste Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:50:29 -0200 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <[email protected]> X-pstn-2strike: clear X-pstn-neptune: 0/0/0.00/0 X-pstn-levels: (S: 1.96218/99.81787 CV:99.9000 FC:95.5390 LC:95.5390 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 ) X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:1.0000) s cv gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c X-pstn-addresses: from <[email protected]> [db-null] I'm out of ideas on how to fix this, I think it's dns issue, but I have marked the spf inside my tinydns =( Is there anything I can check to know why this email is marked as spam? Any help will be appreciated! Thanks and sorry for my bad english.

    Read the article

  • Want to use apache, ISP blocking port 80

    - by Will
    I am attempting to set up a small web server on my home network, but my ISP is blocking incoming port 80 ( and no, i'm not paying $50/month extra for them to unblock it). I am looking for some ways around this, obviously I can change the port # but I don't find this ideal. really appreciate any ideas for this

    Read the article

  • Fast (non-blocking) way to transfer many files to another server

    - by Nyxynyx
    I am currently attempting to transfer over 1 million files from one server to another. Using wget, it seems to be extremely slow, probably because it starts a new transfer after the previous one has been completed. Question: Is there a faster non-blocking (asynchronous) way to do the transfer? I do not have enough space on the first server to compress the files into tar.gz and transferring them over. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Blocking specific IP requests

    - by user42908
    Hi, I own a VPS running Ubuntu with Apache stuff. Recently I am getting continous request from IP static-195.22.94.120.addr.tdcsong.se.54303 : 12337 I already installed the 'arno-iptables-firewall'. Have iptables blocking 195.22.94.120 Still then I get the request from that IP if i see via tcpdump. May I know what else i can do to protect my VPS? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Blocking IP addresses Load Balanced Cluster

    - by Dom
    Hi We're using HAproxy as a front end load balancer / proxy and are looking for solutions to block random IP addresses from jamming the cluster. Is anyone familiar with a conf for HAProxy that can block requests if they exceed a certain threshold from a single IP within a defined period of time. Or can anyone suggest a software solution which could be placed in front of HAProxy to handle this kind of blocking. Thanks Dom--

    Read the article

  • Spammer relaying via Postfix mail server

    - by Paddington
    I have a Plesk 9.5 mail server (cm.snowbarre.co.za) on Ubuntu 8.04 LTS which forwards all SMTP traffic to an anti-spam server cacti.snowbarre.co.za. Many times I see the headers on the anti-spam server to contain from addresses not hosted on the mail server and I have checked and confirmed that my server is not an open relay server. How can a spammer be using my server to relay spam traffic? How can I stop this? Open relay test: paddington@paddington-MS-7387:~$ telnet cm 25 Trying 196.201.x.x... Connected to cm. Escape character is '^]'. 220 cm.snowbarre.co.za ESMTP Postfix (Ubuntu) mail from:[email protected] 250 2.1.0 Ok rcpt:[email protected] 221 2.7.0 Error: I can break rules, too. Goodbye. Connection closed by foreign host. paddington@paddington-MS-7387:~$ A typical headers is: *Received from cm.snowbarre.co.za (cm.snowbarre.co.za[196.201.x.x]) by cacti.snowbarre.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00B601881AD; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:03:29 +0200 (SAST) Received from cm.snowbarre.co.za (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cm.snowbarre.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81627367E007; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:02:50 +0200 (SAST) Received from User (ml82.128.x.x.multilinksg.com [82.128.x.x]) by cm.snowbarre.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:02:49 +0200 (SAST) Reply-To <[email protected]> From "Ms Nkeuri Aguiyi"<[email protected]> Subject Your Unpaid Fund. Date Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:03:22 -0700 MIME-Version 1.0 Content-Type text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding 7bit X-Priority 3 X-MSMail-Priority Normal X-Mailer Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Antivirus avast! (VPS 120821-0, 08/21/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status Clean Message-Id <[email protected]> To undisclosed-recipients:;*

    Read the article

  • Non blocking IO call from Django controller from a Windows service

    - by Anders
    Hi all, I have a CherryPy server with a Django application running as a Windows service, inside a controller I need to make a call to wmic, the problem is, so far I have only been able to implement a blocking operation. Does anyone have any recommendation for a non blocking operation so, at least more then one person at a time can access this controller and extract information from wmic? Thanks in advance, Anders

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >