You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> on 2007/05/04 17:19:06 UTC

Re: Botnet and SA 3.2.0

Jason Bertoch [Electronet] writes:
> Have the Botnet rules been absorbed into SA 3.2.0, or are the new rules
> compliamentary?  Specifically, I'm looking at FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D and
> FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB.

They're complementary (as far as I know).

--j.

Re: Botnet and SA 3.2.0

Posted by Patrick Sneyers <cg...@bulckens.com>.

Op 4-mei-07, om 17:19 heeft Justin Mason het volgende geschreven:

>
> Jason Bertoch [Electronet] writes:
>> Have the Botnet rules been absorbed into SA 3.2.0, or are the new  
>> rules
>> compliamentary?  Specifically, I'm looking at FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D and
>> FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB.
>
> They're complementary (as far as I know).
>
> --j.

This one is new and looks BOTNET like.
But it misfires all the time. Doens't work.

Received: from [78.48.66.39] (HELO son-lpyqjmpajv2)
*  0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS
*  2.8 BOTNET_CLIENT Hostname looks like a client

78.48.66.39 PTR record: f048066039.adsl.alicedsl.de.

Patrick Sneyers