Search Results

Search found 531 results on 22 pages for 'blacklist prevention'.

Page 6/22 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

• Microsoft , Hotmail , Live , MSN, Outlook , unable to send emails and no support received from microsoft in 3 months we are trying asking for that

  - by bombastic

  Ok this is somenthing unbelievable, we have a website, users sign up and receives links to confirm they signed up BUT: 1 - microsoft blocked our IP (no one with microsoft email account can receive our emails) 2 - we tryed contacting microsoft submitting the detailed form about our problem 3 - we posted 3 times in their community about our problem 4 - we tweeted they about our problem 5 - we tryed finding out some telephone support number (the few there are arent' helping at all) Do you think we solved? the answer is NO :/ We still unable to send emails from our IP to microsoft email accounts, since 3 months back. Our emails are perfect we checked all the email headers following microsoft guidelines but it seems not enought, checking our IP reputation it seems everythings ok, indeed we can send email easly to any other provider , gmail, yahoo, etc Do you know any other way to try to get help ? FULL STACK ERROR FROM MICROSOFT: host mx1.hotmail.com[65.55.37.120] said: 550 SC-001 (COL0-MC4-F28) Unfortunately, messages from 94.23.***** weren't sent. Please contact your Internet service provider since part of their network is on our block list. You can also refer your provider to http://mail.live.com/mail/troubleshooting.aspx#errors. (in reply to MAIL FROM command) We are running a Virtual Private Server , so no HOSTING SITE, using NGINX too

  Read the article

• I'm using a shared server, and as such Gmail marks my email as spam (all from headers are different from the same IP)

  - by chipperyman573

  I have a shared server, meaning many people share the same IP. When I send an email, the @website.com is different from someone else that shares the same IP with me, therefore Gmail marks it as spam. For example: My website's IP is 1.2.3.4. My website is mywebsite.com Person 2's website's IP is hosted by the same host, and as such their IP is 1.2.3.4 Person 2's website is person2.com. When they send an email, it gets sent from [email protected] When I send an email, it gets sent from [email protected] According to Gmail's spam thing: "Use the same address in the 'From:' header on every bulk mail you send." Again, the only similarities between our websites is the IP. However, this causes Gmail to mark both our mail as spam. Is there a way to sort this out with Gmail?

  Read the article

• Why does Google mark one e-mail as spam while does not the other?

  - by nKn

  I've a Postfix installation which works fine, I don't get any trouble with mails sent through a mail client (in my case, Thunderbird or RoundCube) when the To: address is a GMail account. However, I recently needed to use the PHPMailer tool to send some e-mails to some GMail accounts, so I configured an account to be used via SASL authentication + TLS. I don't mean mass mailing, just 2-3 mails. If I send the e-mail from the Thunderbird or RoundCube clients, the mail is not marked as spam. However, if I use PHPMailer, it always gets catalogued as spam. So I compared both headers and I just can't find the reason why the second is marked as spam while the first one is just ok. The first header sent from a mail client which is not marked as spam: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.76.153.102 with SMTP id vf6csp230573oab; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:08:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.23.39 with SMTP id j7mr45544050oef.20.1408471699715; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from mail.mydomain.com (X.ip-92-222-X.eu. [92.222.X.X]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t5si27115082oej.10.2014.08.19.11.08.18 for <[email protected]> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 92.222.X.X as permitted sender) client-ip=92.222.X.X; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 92.222.X.X as permitted sender) [email protected]; dkim=pass (test mode) [email protected] Received: by mail.mydomain.com (Postfix, from userid 111) id D8F69120293D; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:08:17 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mydomain.com; s=mail; t=1408471697; bh=wKMX9gkQ7tCLv8ezrG5t4bICm/SSLQsNfTdZMToksWw=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=qRNcYVdmk+n3D1uuv0FInTx7/LzH2ojck9DgCmabFPvfke233lkojUOjezCUGx7iV DL8EayZ28mzzzHpB7ETeMzop/5OS3BmvFtGKVD9gzc78cDIFXTDoRFAnkRWDR2IOxI SOn5tiyODTFpkbDgJOndzQ6qL5K0S9ASNGCZrNL4= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on vpsX.ovh.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from [192.168.1.111] (unknown [77.231.X.X]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: [email protected]) by mail.mydomain.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 910341202624 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:08:17 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mydomain.com; s=mail; t=1408471697; bh=wKMX9gkQ7tCLv8ezrG5t4bICm/SSLQsNfTdZMToksWw=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=qRNcYVdmk+n3D1uuv0FInTx7/LzH2ojck9DgCmabFPvfke233lkojUOjezCUGx7iV DL8EayZ28mzzzHpB7ETeMzop/5OS3BmvFtGKVD9gzc78cDIFXTDoRFAnkRWDR2IOxI SOn5tiyODTFpkbDgJOndzQ6qL5K0S9ASNGCZrNL4= Message-ID: <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:08:24 +0100 From: My Name <[email protected]> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: My other account <[email protected]> Subject: . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit . The second header sent from PHPMailer which is always marked as spam: Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.76.153.102 with SMTP id vf6csp230832oab; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.121.67 with SMTP id li3mr44086252oeb.17.1408471930520; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from mail.mydomain.com (X.ip-92-222-X.eu. [92.222.X.X]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w8si27103806obn.30.2014.08.19.11.12.10 for <[email protected]> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 92.222.X.X as permitted sender) client-ip=92.222.X.X; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 92.222.X.X as permitted sender) [email protected]; dkim=pass (test mode) [email protected] Received: by mail.mydomain.com (Postfix, from userid 111) id 1999D120293D; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:12:09 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mydomain.com; s=mail; t=1408471929; bh=N1JuHq1S+8GrjHcEK3xn8P1JS+ygEBv5LKe0BiXuVJo=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-to:Subject:From; b=K7tcPyArzSTY91VEw6mAAFtDurSGwgTLGkfUZdC5mqsg0g/1LzmZkgwdjj4NdJa6M E2kDz3dwYN8FcZmbampJYFXxj4NQVtSnzjiWV40rpfOFqD2rXDGNIyB2QOjBZZ4WK3 7s4lyoJ/BrdQH4en8ctLVsDHed/KpHD4iGFEl67E= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on vpsX.ovh.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from rpi.mydomain.com (unknown [77.231.X.X]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: [email protected]) by mail.mydomain.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B42AF1202624 for <[email protected]>; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:12:08 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mydomain.com; s=mail; t=1408471928; bh=N1JuHq1S+8GrjHcEK3xn8P1JS+ygEBv5LKe0BiXuVJo=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-to:Subject:From; b=iXPM0tS36swudPTT4FOHHtPi5Ll6LbR60kNqCinZ8utcWoFE31SFTpoMEq5aCM5ux wQMdFiN8c6vkjRGabmvqFTTIbwJsrToHo/4+Lt5HEBoQQE2Y3T+xGmnmGAHCS6stKB yb7SVmtrIAsVtSMKA8VYIbmu2oYqV3afYt7g0OMQ= Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:12:07 +0200 To: [email protected] From: Trying another account <[email protected]> Reply-to: Trying another account <[email protected]> Subject: . Message-ID: <[email protected]> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: PHPMailer 5.1 (phpmailer.sourceforge.net) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" . I also tried: Adding a User-Agent header to match the first one. Removing the X-Mailer header. No one of them made a difference. Is there some significant difference which is making the second e-mail to be marked as spam by Google?

  Read the article

• How to get rid of spam that sends from clients own email address?

  - by MeltingDog

  I've Googled everywhere for a solution for this, but though the same issue appears to be happening to a lot of people, I havent found anything that helped. Several of my clients are receiving loads of spam emails with the senders email being their own. The emails subject line is: Environmental corporation searching for representatives worldwide. The emails are not being sent from any scripts in the sites and all the code appears clean. I have also updated the sites CMS. Would anyone know how to get round this issue? Any help is appreciated!

  Read the article

• Admin form that generates an email confirmation ends up in SPAM [duplicate]

  - by PJD Creative

  This question already has an answer here: How can I prevent my mail from being classified as spam? 10 answers I have an admin form that I have setup for a client, that generates an email confirmation from a template I have designer... It works really well but it ends up in spam some of the time, and this is real frustrating as it is just confirming some details for the customer of what they have just booked, not at all spam, and is accessed via a page where the admin requires login. Any suggestions as to why this may end up in spam. It does have dollar signs ($$) as it is confirming a price, im assuming this is one problem, the rest of it is just general dates and info about the confirmation. Is there any suggestions on how to get this out of spam? thanks in advance

  Read the article

• How do i fight spam against my mail servers ?

  - by tawfekov

  Hello , the problem I am having is the ability to fight spammers who add unsubscribe form this mail list by clicking here into their spam emails , turns out i am not the only suffer form this , gmail don't filter these mail as well . i made a simple test case , created an email on gmail and contacted one the spammer asking him to add my address to his list such a bad idea :P and google thought that i am already subscribed to that list and put it in my inbox . these kind of spammer uses many accounts to send their spam which make this job much harder how do i report those spammer , and block them in gmail or mail mail servers ?? what is the fastest way to do that ???

  Read the article

• How to prevent forum spam [closed]

  - by whamsicore

  Possible Duplicate: Make your site anti-bot? I want to prevent spam from overrunning my website, but neither do I want to make the user type in captcha each time they make a post. Any suggestions? Context: My website allows anonymous users to make leave comments on the fly. Comments are randomly displayed, so the more spam = higher chance of it being shown. Need to prevent spam but don't want to have each comment require captcha input.

  Read the article

• How to unblacklist an IP at Google?

  - by DJRayon

  I own a small business with two servers for webhosting. When setting up the primary (CentOS 5.5 + WHM, secondary is WHM DNS Only) server I kinda messed up the firewall, so the hackers could send stuff from my server. My primary IP is x.y.29.218. Anyway - I got blacklisted in several places, but now those blacklistings are gone. For a week or so, but Google still has my IP blacklisted. I handling serious damages because of that. Many clients want to switch from my hosting, etc. I've fixed the hole with CSF firewall SMTP_BLOCK option and enabled also the WHM SMTP TEAK Currently all I see from the Main Email View Mail Statistics (Errors section) in WHM is rows and rows of the following message removed-the-email-address-for-security R=lookuphost T=remote_smtp: SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: host aspmx.l.google.com [a.b.39.27]: 550-5.7.1 [x.y.29.218 1] Our system has detected an unusual rate of\n550-5.7.1 unsolicited mail originating from your IP address. To protect our\n550-5.7.1 users from spam, mail sent from your IP address has been blocked.\n550-5.7.1 Please visit http://www.google.com/mail/help/bulk_mail.html to review\n550 5.7.1 our Bulk Email Senders Guidelines. h24si3868764fas.171 What are my options? I have one IP free. How can I configure Exim to send mail from that IP? My brain is like constantly blowing up because of this problem. Please someone, who has any knowledge how to deal with the current situation, please give me some kind of help - any help, suggestions, etc. I've tried everything I know, and I still don't know much, because this is the first time (I just started to webhost, etc) I deal with real physical servers not some kind of pre-setup VPS solution. Many - many thanks, whoever has time to offer some help.

  Read the article

• How can I reduce the number of spammers registering with my phpBB site?

  - by Jayapal Chandran

  I have a site which runs phpBB, on this site I have enabled user authentication through email when registering enabled captcha However I still get spam users every 20 to 30 minutes. Is there anything I can do to prevent this with the ucp.php file? I have already loaded a large list of IP addresses yet there are spam users registering all the time. One thing I can do is I can check the bounce mail to find the username and can pipe bounced mails to a php script and immediately delete that user, but I have not got any bounce back from hotmail or some other email clients. So this way it will catch hold of a certain percent of spam users but there are still a huge amount of users spamming. What else can I do to prevent spammers abusing my phpBB site?

  Read the article

• phpBB3 antispam: mod for "patrolling" the forum?

  - by STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED

  I've been working on various antispam measure in a phpBB3-based forum I host. Now I was thinking of an extension/mod that ties in with editing of posts (and later perhaps signatures/profiles) in that new text or edited text defaults to something like "not patrolled" and moderators could then in a special queue review text that contains links or similar item (based on heuristics). Now the question: does such a mod exist (I didn't find one)? If it does exist and anyone has used it (or them), please include your experiences with it in the answer.

  Read the article

• Silverstripe: How can I disable comments?

  - by SamIAm

  My client site is built in Silverstripe, there is a news page, and it allows people to leave comments. Unfortunately we've got loads of spam emails. I'm new to this, is there any way we can disable the comment field by default? How do I do it? Alternatively is there easy way for me to install a spam protection? Update - Because this is someone else's code, I just realised that they have some sort of spam protection already, so we are trying to disable comments now. I have manage to set no comment as default by changing file BlogEntry.php static $defaults = array( "ProvideComments" => true, 'ShowInMenus' => false ); to static $defaults = array( "ProvideComments" => false, //changed 'ShowInMenus' => false ); Am I on the right track to disable comments by default? Also how can I stop on the news page showing xxx comments link? eg Test Posted by Admin on 21 June 2011 | 3 Comments Tags: P This is a test.... 3 comments | Read the full post

  Read the article

• Designing rules to fight smallpox in Civ-style TBS games

  - by Williham Totland

  TL;DR: How do you design a ruleset for a Civ-style TBS game that prevents city smallpox from being a profitable or viable strategy? Long version: Civ-style games are pretty great. Bringing a civilization from cradle to grave is a great endeavor, and practicing diplomacy with hard-line human players is fun and challenging. In theory. In practice, however, many of these games has, especially in multiplayer, exactly one viable strategy: City smallpox, a.k.a. infinite city spread, a.k.a. covering all available space with 1-citizen cities, packed as tight as they will go. I suppose this could count as emergent gameplay, but still; it could hardly be considered to be in the spirit of the class of game. The Civilization series, of course, is stuck in their more or less fixed rule sets, established with Civilization. Yes, there have been major changes in some respects, but the rules pertaining to city building and maintenance have stayed pretty similar. So the question, then: If you build a ruleset for a TBS from the ground up; what rules should be in place to prevent Infinite City Sprawl from being a viable strategy? Or should ICS be a viable strategy?

  Read the article

• My email server is blacklisted what can I do

  - by Funky Si

  I have discovered that my email server has been blacklisted by http://www.five-ten-sg.com What affect is that going to have on my sending and receiving emails and is there anything I can do about it to fix it. All the emails I am sending are going out by IIS6 SMTP server, so any suggestions for how to configure this better gratefully received.

  Read the article

• Is it possible to block traffic originating from a specific country?

  - by mickburkejnr

  Hi guys, My personal website is currently getting a lot of spam comments at the moment, and most of them originate from Russia (I've used Google Analytics to identify the traffic, and a lot of the links link to Russian sites). As it's a pain to keep deleting this comments, I would like to ban people from there commenting or visiting the website. Is this possible? Also, the website is using WordPress. Many thanks!

  Read the article

• Steps to make sure network is not blacklisted...Again

  - by msindle

  I have an interesting issue. I have a client that just got blacklisted due to spam being sent out over the last 2 days. I have my firewall configured to only allow mail to go outbound on port 25 from our mail server (Exchange 2010) exclusively and I have verified that there are no open relay's on our transport rules. We are running Vipre Business and after running deep scans with updated definitions all computers come back clean. I ran a message tracking report on our Exchange server that shows all mail sent via the mail server over the last couple of weeks and didn't see anything malicious or out of the ordinary. I have also verified that there are no home devices or rouge computers on the network. For all practical purposes it appears that the network is clean, but we still wound up on 5 or 6 blacklists...Where should I start looking next? Is there a "best practices" guide that can help eradicate this issue? Thanks in advance! msindle

  Read the article

• Confused with DKIM, SPF and Exim Configs

  - by 0pt1m1z3

  I've now spent 2 hours trying to figure out this issue and I am about to give up and go to bed. I've been having issues with Gmail rejecting emails from my VPS server because of false spam alerts (probably caused by lfd sending too many emails). So I changed my Exim config to send emails from a different IP (my VPS comes with 3) and that fixed the issue. I also enabled DKIM and SPF on my domains for added measure. But now, all my emails appear as ("From: Sender Name via server.domain1.com") where server.domain1.com is my VPS hostname. I previously had the same issue in Outlook and turning off "Set SMTP Sender: headers" solved that problem. But I believe adding the DKIM and SPF now makes Gmail add "via server.domain1.com" to my messages. How do I fix this? This is a typical header for a message (as it appears at gmail): Delivered-To: [email protected] Received: by 10.60.44.163 with SMTP id f3csp248622oem; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.106.200 with SMTP id gw8mr452788igb.10.1333081398523; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from domain2.com ([X.X.X.X]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y1si810998igb.3.2012.03.29.21.23.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates X.X.X.X as permitted sender) client-ip=X.X.X.X; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates X.X.X.X as permitted sender) [email protected]; dkim=pass [email protected] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=server.domain1.com; s=default; h=Date:Message-Id:From:Content-type:MIME-Version:Subject:To; bh=wF8bBRgh01EYg4t5DAeVPv1Ps906UVIeRnQCb/HvSYw=; b=k/Pg7lnrO+Ud/z1mOTv+O/3DiJzzQgyBhfIizIaFHM8tF/eNJt5P2k+9yQB224sxYstZIWwVRBJmiqvcM1QhARv1HWqWma0crppZ3JOn+LRHANan634OBi+58SIRA+gu; Received: (Exim 4.77) id 1SDTVE-0005HA-9Y for [email protected]; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:31:56 -0400 To: [email protected] Subject: Password Reset Request MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Sender Name <[email protected]> Message-Id: <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:31:56 -0400 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.domain1.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - domain2.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [507 504] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - server.domain1.com

  Read the article

• How to batch remove spamming users and pages they created on MediaWiki?

  - by Problemania

  I'm trying to clean up a MediaWiki instance which has been subjected to spamming and vandalism for a period of time. The current status is that there are a large number of users which only created spam pages but typically not altered legitimate pages. And there is only < 10 users which I know are legitimate users and created a small number of legitimate pages. Abstractly, my idea of fixing the messy situation is to find the complete list of users that are not in that small set of legitimate users, and use RenameUser extension to rename them all to a Spammer user, and use Nuke extension to mass delete all pages it created. Any practical advice on how to proceed? Since there are hundreds of spammer users, how do I effectively rename them? It seems Renameuser extension does not support automated batch renaming of users by allowing users to be renamed with a list or file.

  Read the article

• Why do spammers use CELESTRON NEXTAR 6SE?

  - by fmz

  I am running a website for a volunteer organization that hosts an annual event. There is a form where people can volunteer to bring items for the event. All too frequently I get spam from users across the globe that enter things like this: Country - 1: Australia Material - 1: CELESTRON NEXTAR 6SE Country - 2: Australia Material - 2: C8 Newton Country - 3: Australia Material - 3: ETX 125EC Country - 4: Australia Material - 4: ETX 125EC Country - 5: Australia Material - 5: CELESTRON NEXTAR 6SE I don't really care about the country, but what is it with the telescope stuff? Is there some hidden meaning behind all this or is it some astronomy group that moonlights as spammers?

  Read the article

• Running Tor relay on personal server: can this hurt?

  - by rxt

  I would like to install TOR as relay on a hosted personal server. I have loads of bandwidth that I don't use. It's not an exit point. Can this hurt my server somehow? Possible problems I'm thinking of are blacklisting the IP-address, or something similar. I know that exit points get blacklisted on many servers. So if I'm using Tor as a client, I will probably use a blacklisted IP-address for the outside world, so cannot access those sites. However, I'm running this on a server, and as a public relay. Could this hurt the functioning of and access to websites on this server? I could install it as a bridge. I'm a little confused about the difference between bridging and relaying. If I understand correctly the only difference is that a relay is public. Does this mean that bridging only works if I know someone and give them my IP-address?

  Read the article

• How to report spam to blacklists

  - by hayalci

  Is there a central place to report spam to various blacklists ? I regularly report to spamcop, but I do not see the addresses I reported as listed. (I guess nobody else bothers with my regular spammer. After being frustrated with bayes and spammcop, I blocked its /24 subnet) Spamcop is only a single service. I want to make the spammer known to a large number of services, and hopefully blocked by many of them. I looked for some other blacklists to report to, but the ones I looked do not consider user submissions (or they hide it well)

  Read the article

• Security as a Service (SecaaS) for Amazon EC2

  - by Dave

  I'm looking for a security as a service (SecaaS) provider or open source solution for Amazon EC2 instances, however I can't seem to find much on Google or elsewhere so was wondering if anyone knows where I could find this service? Ideally I'm looking for something that offers virtual firewalls, email and web security and virtual spam prevention. If anyone has any information on SecaaS i'd appreciate it, Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• How to code an efficient blacklist filter function in php?

  - by achairapart

  So, I have three arrays like this: [items] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [id] => someid [title] => sometitle [author] => someauthor ... ) ... ) and also a string with comma separated words to blacklist: $blacklist = "some,words,to,blacklist"; Now I need to match these words with (as they can be one of) id, title, author and show results accordingly. I was thinking of a function like this: $pattern = '('.strtr($blacklist, ",", "|").')'; // should return (some|words|etc) foreach ($items as $item) { if ( !preg_match($pattern,$item['id']) || !preg_match($pattern,$item['title']) || !preg_match($pattern,$item['author']) ) { // show item } } and I wonder if this is the most efficient way to filter the arrays or I should use something with strpos() or filter_var with FILTER_VALIDATE_REGEXP ... Note that this function is repeated per 3 arrays. However, each array will not contain more than 50 items.

  Read the article

• Why is Routes.rb not loading the IPs from cache?

  - by Christian Fazzini

  I am testing this in local. My ip is 127.0.0.1. The ip_permissions table, is empty. When I browse the site, everything works as expected. Now, I want to simulate browsing the site with a banned IP. So I add the IP into the ip_permissions table via: IpPermission.create!(:ip => '127.0.0.1', :note => 'foobar', :category => 'blacklist') In Rails console, I clear the cache via; Rails.cache.clear. I browse the site. I don't get sent to pages#blacklist. If I restart the server. And browse the site, then I get sent to pages#blacklist. Why do I need to restart the server every time the ip_permissions table is updated? Shouldn't it fetch it based on cache? Routes look like: class BlacklistConstraint def initialize @blacklist = IpPermission.blacklist end def matches?(request) @blacklist.map { |b| b.ip }.include? request.remote_ip end end Foobar::Application.routes.draw do match '/(*path)' => 'pages#blacklist', :constraints => BlacklistConstraint.new .... end My model looks like: class IpPermission < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :ip, :note, :category validates_uniqueness_of :ip, :scope => [:category] validates :category, :inclusion => { :in => ['whitelist', 'blacklist'] } def self.whitelist Rails.cache.fetch('whitelist', :expires_in => 1.month) { self.where(:category => 'whitelist').all } end def self.blacklist Rails.cache.fetch('blacklist', :expires_in => 1.month) { self.where(:category => 'blacklist').all } end end

  Read the article

• Recommendations for Spam Filter

  - by dotdev

  We are currently using MxGuardDog for spam filtering. It works by pointing our MX records at their mail servers. The service seems pretty good, it keeps out the obvious spam, but I would still say it let's through mail that to me is spam, but I accept that on the surface those emails may not flag any of the universally recognised indicators for spam. If an email comes through that I believe is spam, I can login to the Web Console and blacklist the email/domain. However, 99% of the time I don't because it's inconvenient - or, should i say, it's far less convenient than a button in Outlook that allows me to report the email/domain as spam. So, what we're looking for is a similar service i.e. cloud spam filtering that has an Outlook plugin so that Administrators/Users can report spam. We are only a small company, 10 users, so cost is of course an issue for us. Many thanks dotdev

  Read the article

• how to better (inambiguaously) use the terms CAPTCHA and various types of interactions?

  - by vgv8

  I am working on survey of state-of-the-art and trends of spam prevention techniques. I observe that non-intrusive, transparent to visitor spam prevention techniques (like context-based filtering or honey traps) are frequently called non-captcha. Is it correct understanding of term CAPTCHA which is "type of challenge-response [ 2 ]test used in computing to ensure that the response is not generated by a compute" [ 1 ] and challenge-response does not seem to imply obligatory human involvement. So, which understanding (definition) of term and classification I'd better to stick with? How would I better call CAPTCHA without direct human interaction in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion of terms understnding? How would I better (succinctly and unambiguously) coin the term for captchas requiring human interaction but without typing into textbox? How would I better (succinctly and unambiguously) coin the terms to mark the difference between human interaction with images (playing, drag&dropping, rearranging, clicking with images) vs. just recognizing them (and then typing into a textbox the answer without interaction with images)? PS. The problem is that recognition of a wiggled word in an image or typing the answer to question is also interaction and when I start to use the terms "interaction", "interactive", "captcha", "protection", "non-captcha", "non-interactive", "static", "dynamic", "visible", "hidden" the terms overlap ambiguously with which another (especailly because the definitions or their actual practice of usage are vague or contradictive). [ 1 ] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >