Search Results

Search found 222 results on 9 pages for 'abuse'.

Page 4/9 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >

• Why "private" methods in the object oriented ?

  - by pointlesspolitics

  I understand it is a very basic concept in the oops. But still I cannot get my head around. I understood why member variables are private, so class user cannot abuse it by setting up invalid values. But how can this apply to the methods ?

  Read the article

• How can I restrict access to some PHP pages only from pages within my website ?

  - by Yossi

  Hi - I have in my website a PHP page which retrieves data from my database to be presented in my website. This page is called via AJAX. How can I restrict the access to it only from pages within my website so users who wants to abuse it and get this data not from the website (e.g. posting HTTP request from their server) itself won't be able to do so ?

  Read the article

• What is the motivation behind c++0x lambda expressions?

  - by LoudNPossiblyRight

  I am trying to find out if there is an actual computational benefit to using lambda expressions in c++, namely "this code compiles/runs faster/slower because we use lambda expressions" OR is it just a neat development perk open for abuse by poor coders trying to look cool? Thanks. PS. I understand this question may seem subjective but i would much appreciate the opinion of the community on this matter.

  Read the article

• What can you do and not do with java annotations?

  - by swampsjohn

  The typical use-case is for simple things like @Override, but clearly you can do a lot more with them. If you push the limits of them, you get things like Project Lombok, though my understanding is that that's a huge abuse of annotations. What exactly can you do? What sort of things can you do at compile-time and run-time with annotations? What can you not do?

  Read the article

• Graph of included files

  - by Dacav

  When I work on someone else's code, I tipically need to abuse of grep in order to find data types declarations etc, and this usually makes me confused. I'd like to have some tool which analyzes the source code and produces some graphviz-like drawing and allows me to follow dependencies. Also I've found this on the internet, but I think is taylored for the linux kernel only.

  Read the article

• How to limit use to only one computer per installation?

  - by DanSogaard

  I'm about to release my application which is built in C# VS2008 to my customer, and I want to prevent copy abuse post deployment, since it's easy to copy installation files to another machine and use the application. I want to limit usage to only one computer per installation.

  Read the article

• Gmail and Live are making all messages from my server as spam.

  - by Ryan Kearney

  I'm getting very weird results here. When my server sends an email to my @hotmail or @gmail account, it's marked as spam. When I send email through my server from Outlook to @hotmail, it doesn't get marked as spam, but it still gets marked as spam in gmail. They seem to get through fine on Yahoo though. My servers hostname A record points to an IP address whose PTR record points back to the same domain name. The TXT record has a SPF record in it to allow email to be sent from that servers IP. I moved from a VPS to a Dedicated server when this started to happen. From what I can see, the email headers are identical. Here's one of my email headers that gmail marks as spam. Some fields were repalced. MYGMAILACCOUNT is the email address of the account the email was addressed to. USER is the name of the account on the system it was sent from HOSTNAME is the servers FQDN IPADDR is the IP Address of the Hostname MYDOMAIN is my domain name Delivered-To: MYGMAILACCOUNT Received: by 10.220.77.82 with SMTP id f18cs263483vck; Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:58:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.16.4 with SMTP id 4mr3886702ybp.110.1267343881628; Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:58:01 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: <USER@HOSTNAME> Received: from HOSTNAME (HOSTNAME [IPADDR]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 17si4604419yxe.134.2010.02.27.23.58.01; Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:58:01 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of USER@HOSTNAME designates IPADDR as permitted sender) client-ip=IPADDR; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of USER@HOSTNAME designates IPADDR as permitted sender) smtp.mail=USER@HOSTNAME Received: from USER by HOSTNAME with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <USER@HOSTNAME>) id 1Nle2K-0000t8-Bd for MYGMAILACCOUNT; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:57:36 -0500 To: Ryan Kearney <MYGMAILACCOUNT> Subject: [Email Subject] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: webmaster@MYDOMAIN Message-Id: <E1Nle2K-0000t8-Bd@HOSTNAME> Sender: <USER@HOSTNAME> Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:57:36 -0500 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - HOSTNAME X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [503 500] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - HOSTNAME Anyone have any ideas as to why all mail leaving my server gets marked as spam? EDIT: I already used http://www.mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx to check if my servers IP's are blacklisted and they are in fact not. That's what I thought at first, but it isn't the case. Update Mar 1, 2010 I received the following email from Microsoft Thank you for writing to Windows Live Hotmail Domain Support. My name is * and I will be assisting you today. We have identified that messages from your IP are being filtered based on the recommendations of the SmartScreen filter. This is the spam filtering technology developed and operated by Microsoft and is built around the technology of machine learning. It learns to recognize what is and isn't spam. In short, we filter incoming emails that look like spam. I am not able to go into any specific details about what these filters specifically entail, as this would render them useless. E-mails from IPs are filtered based upon a combination of IP reputation and the content of individual emails. The reputation of an IP is influenced by a number of factors. Among these factors, which you as a sender can control, are: The IP's Junk Mail Reporting complaint rate The frequency and volume in which email is sent The number of spam trap account hits The RCPT success rate So I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that I got an IP address with little or no history in sending email. I've confirmed that I'm not on any blacklists. I'm guessing it's one of those things that will work itself out in a month or so. I'll post when I hear more.

  Read the article

• Accessing Squid Proxy over internet

  - by user37074

  Hi, I recently finished installing Squid on a VPS I have in the US and its working fine locally (I verified by setting http_proxy variable and using lynx). I want to access this proxy over the internet (as an anonymizer) so that I can see how some ads show up for US traffic on my website. I have setup authentication so abuse is not a problem. However, I am not able to access the proxy over the internet. I have set the following rule in squid.conf http_access allow all Is this not possible to do what I want or I am missing something? The port 3128 is open in the firewall so that is not an issue. Squid is running on 0.0.0.0 Thanks

  Read the article

• Accessing Squid Proxy over internet

  - by prateekdayal

  Hi, I recently finished installing Squid on a VPS I have in the US and its working fine locally (I verified by setting http_proxy variable and using lynx). I want to access this proxy over the internet (as an anonymizer) so that I can see how some ads show up for US traffic on my website. I have setup authentication so abuse is not a problem. However, I am not able to access the proxy over the internet. I have set the following rule in squid.conf http_access allow all Is this not possible to do what I want or I am missing something? The port 3128 is open in the firewall so that is not an issue. Squid is running on 0.0.0.0 Thanks Prateek

  Read the article

• Emails forwarded via postfix get flagged as spam and forged in Gmail

  - by Kendall Hopkins

  I'm trying to setup a forwarding only email server. I'm running into the problem where all messages forwarded via postfix are getting put into gmail's spam folder and getting flagged as forged. I'm testing a very similar setup on a cpanel box and their forwarded emails make it through without any problem. Things I've done: Setup reverse dns on forwarding box Setup SPF record for forwarding box domain CPanel route (not flagged as spam): [email protected] - [email protected] - [email protected] AWS postfix route (flagged as spam): [email protected] - [email protected] - [email protected] Gmail error message: /etc/postfix/main.cf myhostname = sputnik.*domain*.com smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP $mail_name (Ubuntu) biff = no append_dot_mydomain = no readme_directory = no myorigin = /etc/mailname mydestination = sputnik.*domain*.com, localhost.*domain*.com, , localhost relayhost = mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 10.0.0.0/24 [::1]/128 [fe80::%eth0]/64 mailbox_size_limit = 0 recipient_delimiter = + inet_interfaces = all inet_protocols = all virtual_alias_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/virtual Email forwarded by CPanel (doesn't get marked as spam): Delivered-To: *personaluser*@gmail.com Received: by 10.182.144.98 with SMTP id sl2csp14396obb; Wed, 9 May 2012 09:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.52.38 with SMTP id q6mr1137571obo.8.1336580316700; Wed, 09 May 2012 09:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <mail@*personaldomain*.com> Received: from web6.*domain*.com (173.193.55.66-static.reverse.softlayer.com. [173.193.55.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ec7si1845451obc.67.2012.05.09.09.18.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 May 2012 09:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 173.193.55.66 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of mail@*personaldomain*.com) client-ip=173.193.55.66; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 173.193.55.66 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of mail@*personaldomain*.com) smtp.mail=mail@*personaldomain*.com Received: from mail-vb0-f43.google.com ([209.85.212.43]:56152) by web6.*domain*.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <mail@*personaldomain*.com>) id 1SS9b2-0007J9-LK for mail@kendall.*domain*.com; Wed, 09 May 2012 12:18:36 -0400 Received: by vbbfq11 with SMTP id fq11so599132vbb.2 for <mail@kendall.*domain*.com>; Wed, 09 May 2012 09:18:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Hr0AH40uUtx/w/u9hltbrhHJhRaD5ubKmz2gGg44VLs=; b=IBKi6Xalr9XVFYwdkWxn9PLRB69qqJ9AjUPdvGh8VxMNW4S+hF6r4GJcGOvkDn2drO kw5r4iOpGuWUQPEMHRPyO4+Ozc9SE9s4Px2oVpadR6v3hO+utvFGoj7UuchsXzHqPVZ8 A9FS4cKiE0E0zurTjR7pfQtZT64goeEJoI/CtvcoTXj/Mdrj36gZ2FYtO8Qj4dFXpfu9 uGAKa4jYfx9zwdvhLzQ3mouWwQtzssKUD+IvyuRppLwI2WFb9mWxHg9n8y9u5IaduLn7 7TvLIyiBtS3DgqSKQy18POVYgnUFilcDorJs30hxFxJhzfTFW1Gdhrwjvz0MTYDSRiGQ P4aw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.173.209 with SMTP id bm17mr326586vdc.54.1336580315681; Wed, 09 May 2012 09:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.191.134 with HTTP; Wed, 9 May 2012 09:18:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [99.50.225.7] Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 12:18:35 -0400 Message-ID: <CA+tP6Viyn0ms5RJoqtd20ms3pmQCgyU0yy7GBiaALEACcDBC2g@mail.gmail.com> Subject: test5 From: Kendall Hopkins <mail@*personaldomain*.com> To: mail@kendall.*domain*.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51b9bf5ee11c004bf9cda9c X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm3t1Hohu7fEr5zxQZsC8FQocg662Jv5MXlPXBnPnx2AiQrbLsNQNknLy39Su45xBMCM47K X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - web6.*domain*.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - kendall.*domain*.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - *personaldomain*.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: --bcaec51b9bf5ee11c004bf9cda9c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 test5 --bcaec51b9bf5ee11c004bf9cda9c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 test5 --bcaec51b9bf5ee11c004bf9cda9c-- Email forwarded via AWS postfix box (marked as spam): Delivered-To: *personaluser*@gmail.com Received: by 10.182.144.98 with SMTP id sl2csp14350obb; Wed, 9 May 2012 09:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.137.143 with SMTP id w15mr389471qct.37.1336580266237; Wed, 09 May 2012 09:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <mail@*personaldomain*.com> Received: from sputnik.*domain*.com (sputnik.*domain*.com. [107.21.39.201]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o8si1330855qct.115.2012.05.09.09.17.46; Wed, 09 May 2012 09:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 107.21.39.201 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of mail@*personaldomain*.com) client-ip=107.21.39.201; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 107.21.39.201 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of mail@*personaldomain*.com) smtp.mail=mail@*personaldomain*.com Received: from mail-vb0-f52.google.com (mail-vb0-f52.google.com [209.85.212.52]) by sputnik.*domain*.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A308122AD6 for <mail@*personaldomain2*.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 16:17:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vbzb23 with SMTP id b23so448664vbz.25 for <mail@*personaldomain2*.com>; Wed, 09 May 2012 09:17:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=XAzjH9tUXn6SbadVSLwJs2JVbyY4arosdTuV8Nv+ARI=; b=U8gIgHd6mhWYqPU4MH/eyvo3kyZsDn/GiYwZj5CLbs6Zz/ZOXQkenRi7zW3ewVFi/9 uAFylT8SQ+Wjw2l6OgAioCTojfZ58s4H/JW+1bu460KAP9aeOTcZDNSsHlsj0wvH5XRV 4DQJa11kz+WFVtVVcFuB33WVUPAgJfXzY+pSTe+FWsrZyrrwL7/Vm9TSKI5PBwRN9i4g zAZabgkmw1o2THT3kbJi6vAbPzlqK2LVbgt82PP0emHdto7jl4iD5F6lVix4U0dsrtRv xuGUE0gDyIwJuR4Q5YTkNubwGH/Y2bFBtpx2q1IORANrolWxIGaZSceUWawABkBGPABX 1/eg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.96.169 with SMTP id dt9mr282954vdb.107.1336580265812; Wed, 09 May 2012 09:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.191.134 with HTTP; Wed, 9 May 2012 09:17:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [99.50.225.7] Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 12:17:45 -0400 Message-ID: <CA+tP6VgqZrdxP543Y28d1eMwJAs4DxkS4EE6bvRL8nFoMkgnQQ@mail.gmail.com> Subject: test4 From: Kendall Hopkins <mail@*personaldomain*.com> To: mail@*personaldomain2*.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f37f6f521b304bf9cd79d X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkrNcfSTWz9t6Ir87KEYyM+zJM4y1AbwP86NMXlk8B3ALhnis+olFCKdgPnwH/sIdzF3+Nh --20cf307f37f6f521b304bf9cd79d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 test4 --20cf307f37f6f521b304bf9cd79d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 test4 --20cf307f37f6f521b304bf9cd79d--

  Read the article

• DKIM, SPF, PTR records are not working properly with my domain

  - by shihon

  I configured my server and well authenticate email system with DKIM key, SPF record and PTR records, when i start to sent out mails from phplist interface to my users ~50000, my domain is spammed by google. In headers, signed by and mailed by tag shows by my domain : appmail.co, I also test my domain via check mail provide by port25, report is: This message is an automatic response from Port25's authentication verifier service at verifier.port25.com. The service allows email senders to perform a simple check of various sender authentication mechanisms. It is provided free of charge, in the hope that it is useful to the email community. While it is not officially supported, we welcome any feedback you may have at . Thank you for using the verifier, The Port25 Solutions, Inc. team ========================================================== Summary of Results SPF check: pass DomainKeys check: neutral DKIM check: pass Sender-ID check: pass SpamAssassin check: ham ========================================================== Details: HELO hostname: app.appmail.co Source IP: 108.179.192.148 mail-from: [email protected] SPF check details: Result: pass ID(s) verified: [email protected] DNS record(s): appmail.co. SPF (no records) appmail.co. 14400 IN TXT "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:108.179.192.148 ?all" appmail.co. 14400 IN A 108.179.192.148 DomainKeys check details: Result: neutral (message not signed) ID(s) verified: [email protected] DNS record(s): DKIM check details: Result: pass (matches From: [email protected]) ID(s) verified: header.d=appmail.co Canonicalized Headers: content-type:multipart/alternative;'20'boundary=047d7b2eda75d8544d04c17b6841'0D''0A' to:[email protected]'0D''0A' from:shashank'20'sharma'20'<[email protected]>'0D''0A' subject:Test'0D''0A' message-id:<CADnDhbH9aDBk3Ho2-CrG7gwOoD6RNX0sFq4bWL64+kmo=9HjWg@mail.gmail.com>'0D''0A' date:Sat,'20'2'20'Jun'20'2012'20'16:44:50'20'+0530'0D''0A' mime-version:1.0'0D''0A' dkim-signature:v=1;'20'a=rsa-sha256;'20'q=dns/txt;'20'c=relaxed/relaxed;'20'd=appmail.co;'20's=default;'20'h=Content-Type:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version;'20'bh=GS6uwlT+weKcrrLJ2I+cjBtWPq9nvhwRlNAJebOiQOk=;'20'b=; Canonicalized Body: --047d7b2eda75d8544d04c17b6841'0D''0A' Content-Type:'20'text/plain;'20'charset=UTF-8'0D''0A' '0D''0A' Hello'20'Senders'0D''0A' '0D''0A' --047d7b2eda75d8544d04c17b6841'0D''0A' Content-Type:'20'text/html;'20'charset=UTF-8'0D''0A' '0D''0A' Hello'20'Senders'0D''0A' '0D''0A' --047d7b2eda75d8544d04c17b6841--'0D''0A' DNS record(s): default._domainkey.appmail.co. 14400 IN TXT "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MHwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADawAwaAJhALGCOdMeZRxRHoatH7/KCvI1CKS0wOOsTAq0LLgPsOpMolifpVQDKOWT2zq/6LHVmDVjXLbnWO2d4ry/riy7ei66pLpnAV5ceIUSjBRusI8jcF9CZhPrh/OImsKVUb9ceQIDAQAB;" NOTE: DKIM checking has been performed based on the latest DKIM specs (RFC 4871 or draft-ietf-dkim-base-10) and verification may fail for older versions. If you are using Port25's PowerMTA, you need to use version 3.2r11 or later to get a compatible version of DKIM. Sender-ID check details: Result: pass ID(s) verified: [email protected] DNS record(s): appmail.co. SPF (no records) appmail.co. 14400 IN TXT "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:108.179.192.148 ?all" appmail.co. 14400 IN A 108.179.192.148 SpamAssassin check details: SpamAssassin v3.3.1 (2010-03-16) Result: ham (-0.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.5 BAYES_05 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 1 to 5% [score: 0.0288] -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.5 SINGLE_HEADER_1K A single header contains 1K-2K characters ========================================================== Original Email Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from app.appmail.co (108.179.192.148) by verifier.port25.com id hp7qqo11u9cc for <[email protected]>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:14:52 -0400 (envelope-from <[email protected]>) Authentication-Results: verifier.port25.com; spf=pass [email protected] Authentication-Results: verifier.port25.com; domainkeys=neutral (message not signed) [email protected] Authentication-Results: verifier.port25.com; dkim=pass (matches From: [email protected]) header.d=appmail.co Authentication-Results: verifier.port25.com; sender-id=pass [email protected] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=appmail.co; s=default; h=Content-Type:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version; bh=GS6uwlT+weKcrrLJ2I+cjBtWPq9nvhwRlNAJebOiQOk=;b=pNw3UQNMoNyZ2Ujv8omHGodKVu/55S8YdBEsA5TbRciga/H7f+5noiKvo60vU6oXYyzVKeozFHDoOEMV6m5UTgkdBefogl+9cUIbt5CSrTWA97D7tGS97JblTDXApbZH; Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:57831) by app.appmail.co with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <[email protected]>) id 1SamIF-00055f-Om for [email protected]; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:44:51 +0530 Received: by pbbrp8 with SMTP id rp8so4165728pbb.5 for <[email protected]>; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 04:14:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.216.33 with SMTP id on1mr19414885pbc.105.1338635690988; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 04:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.66.13 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:44:50 +0530 Message-ID: <CADnDhbH9aDBk3Ho2-CrG7gwOoD6RNX0sFq4bWL64+kmo=9HjWg@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Test From: shashank sharma <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2eda75d8544d04c17b6841 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - app.appmail.co X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - verifier.port25.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - appmail.co --047d7b2eda75d8544d04c17b6841 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello Senders --047d7b2eda75d8544d04c17b6841 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Hello Senders --047d7b2eda75d8544d04c17b6841-- I also tried to send mail on yahoo , rediff but i get mails in spam. Please help me to sort out this issue

  Read the article

• Original sender is not correctly identified when spam is forwarded

  - by Stephan Burlot

  I have a forwarding rule with Postfix that forwards all messages to my main email address. When a spam message is sent to one of my emails, it is forwarded but the sender is shown as being the forwarding domain, not the spammer's domain. Real example: mywebsite.com is hosted on Linode. [email protected] sends an email to [email protected] the mail is forwarded to [email protected] my email hosting (anotherwebsite.com) sees it's spam and sends a message to [email protected] and Linode reports a TOS violation. I have modified my postfix settings so I now use RBL, but if a message goes through, it may happen again. How can I prevent this to happen again? Is there some settings to change on Postfix so the original sender is correctly identified? Thanks Stephan EDIT: The steps I did to prevent this to happen again are: Add RBL checking to Postfix Add postgrey to Postfix And finally fix the MX record which was incorrect. I checked with a test email on Spamcop.net and the original sender is correctly identified.

  Read the article

• How can I recover [data from] my failing USB key?

  - by moe37x3

  I have a Corsair Flash Voyager USB key, and it's almost completely failed. When I plug it into my [WinXP] computer, the OS mounts it and open up explorer to the drive's root directory. However, if I try to copy any data off, I get an error message saying that the device is not there. If I leave it plugged in, the OS seems to oscillate between seeing it and not seeing it, since the "Safely Remove Hardware" tray icon appears and disappears every few seconds. The damage was probably caused by my abuse, either from plugging it in with my keys hanging off of it or from losing the cap and keeping it in my pocket uncapped. Is there anything I can do to save the data from it or even rehabilitate the drive?

  Read the article

• Original sender is not correctly identified when spam is forwarded

  - by Stephan Burlot

  I have a forwarding rule with Postfix that forwards all messages to my main email address. When a spam message is sent to one of my emails, it is forwarded but the sender is shown as being the forwarding domain, not the spammer's domain. Real example: mywebsite.com is hosted on Linode. [email protected] sends an email to [email protected] the mail is forwarded to [email protected] my email hosting (anotherwebsite.com) sees it's spam and sends a message to [email protected] and Linode reports a TOS violation. I have modified my postfix settings so I now use RBL, but if a message goes through, it may happen again. How can I prevent this to happen again? Is there some settings to change on Postfix so the original sender is correctly identified? Thanks Stephan

  Read the article

• How to setup a web server with remote SMTP

  - by IP

  I have 2 severs, both running server 2008 (R2) One is the web server, one is running as a mail server. The setup I want is that any mail sent from apps (php, asp and asp.net) on the web server are sending mail through the mail server's SMTP server...but this seems to be proving trickier than i'd hoped. The mail server is running MailEnable, and the web server IIS7 (maybe 7.5) What i don't want is to setup an open relay SMTP server on the web server, as this is going to be open to abuse (even if I just allow relay from local address). the problem is, there doesn't appear to be a way to specify credentials in php so if I point it at the mail server, then the mail server has to be set as an open relay, which is almost worse. Any ideas how I should be doing this?

  Read the article

• Massive Crawling requests from Google Apps Engine useragent

  - by SilentPlayer

  Hi friends, I'm badly affected with 'Google AppEngine-Google' UserAgent.. receiving 5/6 requests per second on http server. This bot is crawling my site just like GoogleBot does. Following is the sample of url in my access logs. 72.14.192.3 - - [19/May/2010:01:27:06 +0000] "GET /some-url/etc-123.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 4707 "-" "AppEngine-Google; (+http://code.google.com/appengine; appid: harpy000)" I have checked the ip address it is registered with Google Inc. Can anyone tell me where i can report Abuse to Google Inc. Or any information about this issue. Thank you!

  Read the article

• AWS EC2: How to determine whether my EC2/scalr AMI was hacked? What to do to secure it?

  - by Niro

  I received notification from Amazon that my instance tried to hack another server. there was no additional information besides log dump: Original report: Destination IPs: Destination Ports: Destination URLs: Abuse Time: Sun May 16 10:13:00 UTC 2010 NTP: N Log Extract: External 184.xxx.yyy.zzz, 11.842.000 packets/300s (39.473 packets/s), 5 flows/300s (0 flows/s), 0,320 GByte/300s (8 MBit/s) (184.xxx.yyy.zzz is my instance ip) How can I tell whether someone has penetrated my instance? What are the steps I should take to make sure my instance is clean and safe to use? Is there some intrusion detection techinque or log that I can use? Any information is highly appreciated.

  Read the article

• In Exim, is RBL spam rejected prior to being scanned by SpamAssassin?

  - by user955664

  I've recently been battling spam issues on our mail server. One account in particular was getting hammered with incoming spam. SpamAssassin's memory use is one of our concerns. What I've done is enable RBLs in Exim. I now see many rejection notices in the Exim log based on the various RBLs, which is good. However, when I run Eximstats, the numbers seem to be the same as they were prior to the enabling of the RBLs. I am assuming because the email is still logged in some way prior to the rejection. Is that what's happening, or am I missing something else? Does anyone know if these emails are rejected prior to being processed by SpamAssassin? Or does anyone know how I'd be able to find out? Is there a standard way to generate SpamAssassin stats, similar to Eximstats, so that I could compare the numbers? Thank you for your time and any advice. Edit: Here is the ACL section of my Exim configuration file ###################################################################### # ACLs # ###################################################################### begin acl # ACL that is used after the RCPT command check_recipient: # to block certain wellknown exploits, Deny for local domains if # local parts begin with a dot or contain @ % ! / | deny domains = +local_domains local_parts = ^[.] : ^.*[@%!/|] # to restrict port 587 to authenticated users only # see also daemon_smtp_ports above accept hosts = +auth_relay_hosts condition = ${if eq {$interface_port}{587} {yes}{no}} endpass message = relay not permitted, authentication required authenticated = * # allow local users to send outgoing messages using slashes # and vertical bars in their local parts. # Block outgoing local parts that begin with a dot, slash, or vertical # bar but allows them within the local part. # The sequence \..\ is barred. The usage of @ % and ! is barred as # before. The motivation is to prevent your users (or their virii) # from mounting certain kinds of attacks on remote sites. deny domains = !+local_domains local_parts = ^[./|] : ^.*[@%!] : ^.*/\\.\\./ # local source whitelist # accept if the source is local SMTP (i.e. not over TCP/IP). # Test for this by testing for an empty sending host field. accept hosts = : # sender domains whitelist # accept if sender domain is in whitelist accept sender_domains = +whitelist_domains # sender hosts whitelist # accept if sender host is in whitelist accept hosts = +whitelist_hosts accept hosts = +whitelist_hosts_ip # envelope senders whitelist # accept if envelope sender is in whitelist accept senders = +whitelist_senders # accept mail to postmaster in any local domain, regardless of source accept local_parts = postmaster domains = +local_domains # accept mail to abuse in any local domain, regardless of source accept local_parts = abuse domains = +local_domains # accept mail to hostmaster in any local domain, regardless of source accept local_parts = hostmaster domains =+local_domains # OPTIONAL MODIFICATIONS: # If the page you're using to notify senders of blocked email of how # to get their address unblocked will use a web form to send you email so # you'll know to unblock those senders, then you may leave these lines # commented out. However, if you'll be telling your senders of blocked # email to send an email to [email protected], then you should # replace "errors" with the left side of the email address you'll be # using, and "example.com" with the right side of the email address and # then uncomment the second two lines, leaving the first one commented. # Doing this will mean anyone can send email to this specific address, # even if they're at a blocked domain, and even if your domain is using # blocklists. # accept mail to [email protected], regardless of source # accept local_parts = errors # domains = example.com # deny so-called "legal" spammers" deny message = Email blocked by LBL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs domains = +use_rbl_domains sender_domains = +blacklist_domains # deny using hostname in bad_sender_hosts blacklist deny message = Email blocked by BSHL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs domains = +use_rbl_domains hosts = +bad_sender_hosts # deny using IP in bad_sender_hosts blacklist deny message = Email blocked by BSHL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs domains = +use_rbl_domains hosts = +bad_sender_hosts_ip # deny using email address in blacklist_senders deny message = Email blocked by BSAL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ domains = +use_rbl_domains senders = +blacklist_senders # By default we do NOT require sender verification. # Sender verification denies unless sender address can be verified: # If you want to require sender verification, i.e., that the sending # address is routable and mail can be delivered to it, then # uncomment the next line. If you do not want to require sender # verification, leave the line commented out #require verify = sender # deny using .spamhaus deny message = Email blocked by SPAMHAUS - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs domains = +use_rbl_domains dnslists = sbl.spamhaus.org # deny using ordb # deny message = Email blocked by ORDB - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs # domains = +use_rbl_domains # dnslists = relays.ordb.org # deny using sorbs smtp list deny message = Email blocked by SORBS - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ # only for domains that do want to be tested against RBLs domains = +use_rbl_domains dnslists = dnsbl.sorbs.net=127.0.0.5 # Next deny stuff from more "fuzzy" blacklists # but do bypass all checking for whitelisted host names # and for authenticated users # deny using spamcop deny message = Email blocked by SPAMCOP - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ hosts = !+relay_hosts domains = +use_rbl_domains !authenticated = * dnslists = bl.spamcop.net # deny using njabl deny message = Email blocked by NJABL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ hosts = !+relay_hosts domains = +use_rbl_domains !authenticated = * dnslists = dnsbl.njabl.org # deny using cbl deny message = Email blocked by CBL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ hosts = !+relay_hosts domains = +use_rbl_domains !authenticated = * dnslists = cbl.abuseat.org # deny using all other sorbs ip-based blocklist besides smtp list deny message = Email blocked by SORBS - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ hosts = !+relay_hosts domains = +use_rbl_domains !authenticated = * dnslists = dnsbl.sorbs.net!=127.0.0.6 # deny using sorbs name based list deny message = Email blocked by SORBS - to unblock see http://www.example.com/ domains =+use_rbl_domains # rhsbl list is name based dnslists = rhsbl.sorbs.net/$sender_address_domain # accept if address is in a local domain as long as recipient can be verified accept domains = +local_domains endpass message = "Unknown User" verify = recipient # accept if address is in a domain for which we relay as long as recipient # can be verified accept domains = +relay_domains endpass verify=recipient # accept if message comes for a host for which we are an outgoing relay # recipient verification is omitted because many MUA clients don't cope # well with SMTP error responses. If you are actually relaying from MTAs # then you should probably add recipient verify here accept hosts = +relay_hosts accept hosts = +auth_relay_hosts endpass message = authentication required authenticated = * deny message = relay not permitted # default at end of acl causes a "deny", but line below will give # an explicit error message: deny message = relay not permitted # ACL that is used after the DATA command check_message: accept

  Read the article

• Limit number of simultaneous connections squid makes to a single server

  - by Ben Voigt

  Note: I am asking about outbound concurrent connection limits, not inbound, which is sufficiently covered on existing questions Modern browsers typically open a large number of simultaneous connections, to take advantage of the fact that TCP fairly shares bandwidth between connections. Of course, this doesn't result in fair sharing between users, so some servers have started penalizing hosts which open too many connections. This limit can be configured client-side (e.g. IE MaxConnectionsPerServer, Firefox network.http.max-connections-per-server), but the method differs for each browser and version, and many users aren't competent to adjust it themselves. So we turn to a squid transparent HTTP proxy for central management of HTTP download. How can the number of simultaneous connections from squid to a remote webserver be limited, so the webserver doesn't perceive it as abuse of concurrent connections? Ideally the limit would be per source address. Squid should accept virtually unlimited concurrent requests from the client browser, and issue them sequentially to the remote server, only N at a time, delaying (but not dropping) the others.

  Read the article

• How do I stop someone from saturating my line & wasting CPU cycles

  - by JoshRibs

  My web host shows inbound & outbound traffic with mrtg. I have a steady 3.5mbps inbound traffic from Nigeria. Even assuming the source IPs & destination ports are blocked with Iptables & verifying nothing is listening on those ports, will the traffic still always pass through the switch & "get" to my server (where my server wastes CPU cycles "dropping" the packets)? Assuming I was setup with a hardware firewall, the traffic would still show in mrtg assuming the firewall is behind the switch? So is there any way to stop someone from saturating your 100mbps line, if they also have a 100mbps line? Other than filing an abuse complaint with the kind folks in Nigeria?

  Read the article

• Why is my email server in AT&T's blacklist?

  - by legoscia

  I just got this bounce message: <¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦@att.net>: host scc-mailrelay.att.net[204.127.208.75] said: 521-88.208.246.34 blocked by sbc:blacklist.mailrelay.att.net. 521 DNSRBL: Blocked for abuse. See http://att.net/blocks (in reply to MAIL FROM command) So I'm trying to figure out why our server ended up on their blacklist. The web page link doesn't tell me why, as far as I can see. From a few multi-RBL tools I conclude that our IP is only on the collateral damage lists of uceprotect.net (you can be exempt from that with a paid subscription), and I dearly hope that AT&T doesn't use that. From the mail server logs I see that an email to another @att.net address went through two days ago without being blocked. Does anyone have any ideas how I can find out what went wrong?

  Read the article

• How can I use a Windows 2003 server as a HTTP proxy?

  - by Will

  I'd like to set up an HTTP proxy on a windows 2003 server so that I can access blocked websites such as YouTube from behind a corporate firewall (DAMN THE MAN!). I've never done this before, so I'm not even sure if the picture I have in my head is valid or possible. So I'm stuck behind a firewall that blocks sites that I need to access occasionally but that are blocked because of abuse by slackers. I've got a Windows 2003 server hosted out on the internet (i.e., outside of this odious firewall). I know I can configure my browser to use a proxy for my HTTP traffic, so why not use my server? What I'd like to know is: Is my concept valid? Can this be done, and will it work? How do I configure my server to act as a proxy? What applications may I have to install? Free is fine but don't leave out commercial software TIA

  Read the article

• file:// command-line arguments

  - by Cory Grimster

  Is it possible to pass command-line arguments to a program that is invoked via a file:// url? I'm trying to include Remote Desktop links in a wiki page that lists some servers: <a href="file:///c|/windows/system32/mstsc.exe /v:serverName">serverName</a> When I omit the argument the link works fine, but when I include it the link doesn't work. I Googled around a bit and couldn't find any references to this. I suspect that the answer is that file:// urls simple don't accept arguments (I can think of all kinds of ways to abuse them if they do), but I thought I'd throw it out there in case I've simply got the syntax wrong. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Number of malicious attacks defended/done on the average user daily [closed]

  - by DalexL

  As a web hoster, it is very easy to notice the large amounts of exploit/abuse attempts done on my servers. Out of curiosity, how often are these attempts done on the average user? I'm assuming almost all of them are prevented just by simple security protocols in place by their browsers, local network, etc. How many attempts, on average, are committed against a single user daily through any method? (email, internet, downloads, etc.)? If known, what percentage of these things are blocked by the average users security? I tried googling but I was having a hard time getting the right search terms together.

  Read the article

• How to "paint" the data layer of a CD using a CD drive?

  - by Jens

  I am looking for software to "paint" geometric shapes, dots or lines on the data layer of a writable CD (or DVD) using a standard drive. These do not have to be visible to the naked eye; I'd try to abuse the small dot size on the CD for some scientific measurements. I am aware of the "LightScribe" feature of some drives and that is not what I am looking for. Most of the software available is of course limited to write music or data, on does not offer the low-level "place a dot at this radius, this angle"-functionality. Is there something out there for me?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >