Koozali.org: home of the SME Server

Legacy Forums => Suggestions => Topic started by: icpix on September 04, 2006, 01:19:22 PM

Title: SpamCannibal (tarpit)
Post by: icpix on September 04, 2006, 01:19:22 PM

http://www.spamcannibal.org/cannibal.cgi
Seems like a good idea;~) Particularly the tarpit stuff over-extending the
originating mailserver with excrutiatingly tiny packets and responses almost
measured in geological time... this sort of thing should've been in the original
'specification' for emails and subsequently the associated spam!
It's GNU/GPL too.
----best wishes, Robert

Title: SpamCannibal (tarpit)
Post by: dmajwool on September 18, 2006, 03:52:22 PM

Looks interesting.  

I note that they say

Quote

The proper disposition of such messages where the content in KNOWN to be a virus or spam is DISPOSE with no notice. Servers that are not properly configured in this manner ARE sending unsolicited email and will be added to the blacklist database.

The SME 7 spamassassin behaviour is to reject spam and return it to the sender.  So are SME users at risk of being added to the Spam Cannibal database?

Title: SpamCannibal (tarpit)
Post by: icpix on September 18, 2006, 04:02:07 PM

dmajwool----
Couldn't say... I've never used SpamAssassin.
Once I found out it could be CPU-intensive I
decided not to go down that route with my
current (somewhat ancient) server hardware.
I'm not specifically vouching for SpamCannibal
rather highlighting its particular use of a 'slowing
down' type of technology. Surely if everyone's
server did this then there would certainly be
no more spam-tolerating ISPs or hosts? I was
hoping Charlie might have some cogent words
on the subject/technology as I know he's not
at all keen on challenge/response mechanisms.
----best wishes, Robert

Title: SpamCannibal (tarpit)
Post by: CharlieBrady on October 16, 2006, 04:47:00 PM

Quote from: "dmajwool"

The SME 7 spamassassin behaviour is to reject spam and return it to the sender.

No, that isn't true. SME7 can either refuse to accept the mail, or will tag it and sort it. It doesn't send bounce messages for content identified as spam.

Title: SpamCannibal (tarpit)
Post by: CharlieBrady on October 16, 2006, 04:47:58 PM

Quote from: "icpix"

I was
hoping Charlie might have some cogent words
on the subject/technology as I know he's not
at all keen on challenge/response mechanisms.

From what I read SpamCannibal is not a challenge/response mechanism.

Title: SpamCannibal (tarpit)
Post by: piran on October 16, 2006, 04:53:22 PM

As you are not at all keen on challenge/response mechanisms
(that conventionally have been used in mitigation against etc)
what are your thoughts on this (tarpit/SpamCannibal) vector?

Title: SpamCannibal (tarpit)
Post by: piran on October 18, 2006, 03:15:58 AM

Came across this quite by accident...
http://www.hjp.at/projekte/qpsmtpd/denysoft_greylist/
...and include it here as I thought it might be relevant.

Title: spamcannibal
Post by: miker on October 28, 2006, 03:49:49 AM

What would you like to know about SpamCannibal?
author....

Title: Re: spamcannibal
Post by: gregswallow on November 01, 2006, 10:13:05 PM

Quote from: "miker"

What would you like to know about SpamCannibal?

Do you know of anyone making rpms for Fedora/Redhat?

Title: spamcannibal - redhat rpms
Post by: miker on November 01, 2006, 10:59:18 PM

Don't know of any rpms

you would have to configure for your target host and environment anyway. The install process is very simple. config is what takes the energy.