viruses

[Rod Dickerson]

Hey- normally I don't get too excited about viruses b/c I use postfix
and no windows clients.... but I saw a reply in here that said it came
from me.  Since I have not sent anything to the list is a long while I
am worried...  Can someone please do me a favor and check the headers
and see if it really did come from rod(a)dickersonbiz.com or if that is
the virus playing games again????  Thanks and sorry if it was me...

Rod


On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 12:00, fedora-test-list-request(a)redhat.com wrote:
>  Send fedora-test-list mailing list submissions to
>  	fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>  	http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
>  or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>  	fedora-test-list-request(a)redhat.com
>  
>  You can reach the person managing the list at
>  	fedora-test-list-admin(a)redhat.com
>  
>  When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>  than "Re: Contents of fedora-test-list digest..."
>  
>  
>  Today's Topics:
>  
>     1. Re: x86_64 updates (Chuck Mead)
>     2. Re: test (Chuck Mead)
>     3. Re: test (shrek-m(a)gmx.de)
>     4. Re: test (shrek-m(a)gmx.de)
>     5. Re: test (csm(a)Lunar-Linux.org)
>     6. rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64 (Gene C.)
>     7. Re: rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64 (Jeremy Katz)
>     8. Re: x86_64 updates (csm(a)Lunar-Linux.org)
>     9. Re: rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64 (Gene C.)
>    10. Re: x86_64 updates (csm(a)Lunar-Linux.org)
>    11. Re: x86_64 updates (Chuck Mead)
>    12. Fedora Bug Day Tomorrow: Jan 28th 2004: Bugzilla versus Mothra (Jef Spaleta)
>    13. anyone using raid?> (jason pearl)
>    14. Re: test (Michael Schwendt)
>    15. Re: test (Dennis Gilmore)
>    16. a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (shrek-m(a)gmx.de)
>    17. Re: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (Denis Croombs)
>    18. RE: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (Randal, Phil)
>    19. Re: x86_64 updates (Rob Myers)
>    20. Re: x86_64 updates (Rob Myers)
>    21. RFE for AV (was:  RE: test) (Vanco, Don)
>    22. RE: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (Chris Ricker)
>    23. Re: RFE for AV (was:  RE: test) (Thomas Munck Steenholdt)
>    24. Re: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (Dennis Gilmore)
>    25. Re: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test) (Chris Ricker)
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 1
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:13:07 -0500
>  From: Chuck Mead <csm(a)lunar-linux.org&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: Re: x86_64 updates
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  Rob Myers wrote:
>  | On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:26, Chuck Mead wrote:
>  |
>  |>Okay I just ran a test with this yum.conf entry:
>  |>
>  |>
>  |>[updates]
>  |>name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
>  |>baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/
>  |>
>  |>It worked fine.
>  |>
>  |>If there is something else you guys need or want up there let me know.
>  |>For now the slocate update is present and accounted for.
>  |
>  |
>  | thank you for doing this.  your efforts have already saved me some
>  | effort!
>  |
>  | i did some unscientific comparisons between an i386 box and my opteron
>  | and think i noticed a few more packages that are out of sync.
>  |
>  | package    version on i386         version on x86-64
>  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
>  | net-snmp   net-snmp-5.1-2.1        net-snmp-5.0.9-2
>  | kernel     kernel-2.4.22-1.2149    kernel-2.4.22-1.2135
>  | glibc      glibc-2.3.2-101.4       glibc-2.3.2-101.1
>  |
>  | is this data correct?  is it worth updating these packages?
>  |
>  | the kernel package seems important, but i'm running 2.6.2-rc2 so i don't
>  | care too much.
>  |
>  | let me know what you think, and thanks again for the slocate update!
>  |
>  | rob.
>  |
>  |
>  [csm@stealth rpms]$ rpm -q glibc
>  glibc-2.3.2-101.4
>  glibc-2.3.2-101.4
>  
>  *there are two of these because one provides x86 compatibility I will
>  see about an update
>  
>  [csm@stealth rpms]$ rpm -q net-snmp
>  net-snmp-5.0.9-2 <---- I will see about providing an update for this.
>  
>  [csm@stealth rpms]$ rpm -q kernel
>  kernel-2.4.22-1.2135.nptl
>  kernel-2.4.22-1.2149.nptl <---- I can provide an update for this also
>  but I don't want to do both... seems unnecessary!
>  
>  - --
>  csm
>  Lunar Linux Project Lead
>  Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
>  Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> >  Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >  
> >  iD8DBQFAFuJzq3bny/5+GAcRAtKBAKCdOg5xMEaazPW1FMDWseDw8/acyACgoyXe
> >  v7lJlvEBsPVU/jbhgi7+KZ8=
> >  =hb8i
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 2
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:20:22 -0500
>  From: Chuck Mead <csm(a)lunar-linux.org&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: Re: test
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  rod(a)dickersonbiz.com wrote:
>  | The message contains Unicode characters and has been sent as a binary
>  attachment.
>  
>  bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!
>  
>  Stupid viruses...
>  
>  - --
>  csm
>  Lunar Linux Project Lead
>  Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
>  Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> >  Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >  
> >  iD8DBQFAFuQmq3bny/5+GAcRAjT5AJ9+txpNfPCqGYamoweWTbdnO0NT9wCfW/7z
> >  JS+tZbKWSvpcY+Qc+RY22Tc=
> >  =2PTg
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 3
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:21:33 +0100
>  From: &quot;shrek-m(a)gmx.de&quot; <shrek-m(a)gmx.de&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: Re: test
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  rod(a)dickersonbiz.com wrote:
>  
>  >  The message contains Unicode characters and has been sent as a binary
>  >  attachment.
>  
>  
>  
>  > >> Virus 'W32/MyDoom-A' found in file file.zip
>  
>  http://sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32mydooma.html
>  
>  -- 
>  shrek-m
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 4
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:31:37 +0100
>  From: &quot;shrek-m(a)gmx.de&quot; <shrek-m(a)gmx.de&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: Re: test
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  shrek-m(a)gmx.de wrote:
>  
>  >> >> Virus 'W32/MyDoom-A' found in file file.zip
>  >
>  > http://sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32mydooma.html
>  
>  
>  i bet that you will see more viruses in 2004 than in 2003
>  
>  please include MailScanner in the near future,
>  or can you recommend a better tool?
>  
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113242
>  
>  
>  -- 
>  shrek-m
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 5
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:50:49 -0500 (EST)
>  From: csm(a)Lunar-Linux.org
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: Re: test
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  I dunno 'cause I do this server side.
>  
>  On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, shrek-m(a)gmx.de spewed into the bitstream:
>  
>  s&gt;shrek-m(a)gmx.de wrote:
>  s>
>  s>>> >> Virus 'W32/MyDoom-A' found in file file.zip
>  s>>
>  s>> http://sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32mydooma.html
>  s>
>  s>
>  s>i bet that you will see more viruses in 2004 than in 2003
>  s>
>  s>please include MailScanner in the near future,
>  s>or can you recommend a better tool?
>  s>
>  s>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113242
>  s>
>  s>
>  s>
>  
>  csm
>  Lunar Linux Project Lead
>  Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
>  Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> >  
> >  iD8DBQFAFutPq3bny/5+GAcRAttXAKCIEB/5fWipk8gsiJfRjLumJ2h5+gCfahZP
> >  JbMptz+l0/J0tkQyjjwa+Y8=
> >  =GhN2
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 6
>  From: "Gene C." <czar(a)czarc.net&gt;
>  To: <fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  Subject: rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:18:50 -0500
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  Can someone explain the logic to me why you need the i386 version of 
>  glibc-devel installed on a x86_64 system in order to rebuild gcc for the 
>  x86_64?  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893
>  
>  Besides the man and info files which are duplicates of the ones in the x86_64 
>  glibc-devel package, the i386 package only contains files in /usr/lib.
>  
>  Yes, I am going to go and try to install it but I am sure bothered as to why.
>  
>  An additional issue is that the i386 glibc-devel is not part of the FC1 x86_64 
>  test1 distribution (only glibc for the i686).  Shouldn't I be able to rebuild 
>  any package in a distribution given only the packages contained in the 
>  distribution?
>  
>  Do I need the i386 version of glibc-devel to rebuild on the sparc?  How about 
>  the IA64 Itanium?
>  -- 
>  Gene
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 7
>  Subject: Re: rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64
>  From: Jeremy Katz <katzj(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:23:09 -0500
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 17:18 -0500, Gene C. wrote:
>  > Can someone explain the logic to me why you need the i386 version of 
>  > glibc-devel installed on a x86_64 system in order to rebuild gcc for the 
>  > x86_64?  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893
>  [snip]
>  > Yes, I am going to go and try to install it but I am sure bothered as to why.
>  
>  It's required so that you can build a gcc that supports -m32 and thus
>  compile 32bit apps.
>  
>  Cheers,
>  
>  Jeremy
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 8
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:15:32 -0500 (EST)
>  From: csm(a)Lunar-Linux.org
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: Re: x86_64 updates
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Rob Myers spewed into the bitstream:
>  
>  RM>On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:26, Chuck Mead wrote:
>  RM>> 
>  RM>> Okay I just ran a test with this yum.conf entry:
>  RM>> 
>  RM>> 
>  RM>> [updates]
>  RM>> name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
>  RM>> baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/
>  RM>> 
>  RM>> It worked fine.
>  RM>> 
>  RM>> If there is something else you guys need or want up there let me know.
>  RM>> For now the slocate update is present and accounted for.
>  RM>
>  RM>thank you for doing this.  your efforts have already saved me some
>  RM>effort!
>  RM>
>  RM>i did some unscientific comparisons between an i386 box and my opteron
>  RM>and think i noticed a few more packages that are out of sync.
>  RM>
>  RM>package    version on i386         version on x86-64
>  RM>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>  RM>net-snmp   net-snmp-5.1-2.1        net-snmp-5.0.9-2
>  RM>kernel     kernel-2.4.22-1.2149    kernel-2.4.22-1.2135
>  RM>glibc      glibc-2.3.2-101.4       glibc-2.3.2-101.1
>  
>  Okay... I have finished building the glibc update (I dunno what I did with 
>  the copy I built before) and am starting now on the kernel... then I will 
>  do the net-snmp and last I will post the updates on the people site.
>  
>  Included will be an i686 version of the glibc package (which you need).
>  
>  - --
>  csm
>  Lunar Linux Project Lead
>  Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
>  Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> >  
> >  iD8DBQFAFv8pq3bny/5+GAcRAm9+AKCaRHe46+P9XXYXk59TUOK2QJgatQCeMYk+
> >  9rXBJR7VOien7a/Qm4cxO/E=
> >  =4TPZ
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 9
>  From: "Gene C." <czar(a)czarc.net&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: Re: rebuild gcc rpm on x86_64
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:01:28 -0500
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  On Tuesday 27 January 2004 18:23, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>  > On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 17:18 -0500, Gene C. wrote:
>  > > Can someone explain the logic to me why you need the i386 version of
>  > > glibc-devel installed on a x86_64 system in order to rebuild gcc for the
>  > > x86_64?  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113893
>  >
>  > [snip]
>  >
>  > > Yes, I am going to go and try to install it but I am sure bothered as to
>  > > why.
>  >
>  > It's required so that you can build a gcc that supports -m32 and thus
>  > compile 32bit apps.
>  
>  OK, I can understand that ... but what if you do not want -m32 support on your 
>  system ... whatever.
>  
>  Anyway, what I really don't completely understand is how to install additional 
>  packages without screwing things up.  OK, the rpm -ivh glibc-devel... did the 
>  right thing and installed and I am now building gcc.
>  
>  I just completed building glibc 2.3.2-101.4 for the x86_64 and have downloaded 
>  the i386/i686 packages also.  I plan to put these into a single (local) 
>  repository and then do an upgrade on the x86_64 system using up2date.  
>  Hopefully up2date will know how to do things "right".
>  
>  But what if I wanted to do this "manually" with just rpm?  How do I do this 
>  "safely" so that I do not wind up with a system with 64 bit applications and 
>  32 bit libraries.  Right now my x86_64 system is pure testing so if I screw 
>  it up it is not a big deal.  But this will be an issue later.  Whether it has 
>  been big iron mainframes or small microcomputer, I am more familiar (more 
>  comfortable) with single architecture systems.  Yes, the IA32 systems have 
>  i686 and athlon packages but they are few and easily understood.  If I do not 
>  do things "right", I could replace stuff in /usr/bin, etc/ with 32 bit 
>  versions.
>  
>  Before I started porting nessus to the 64 bit environment, I tried to install 
>  the 32 bit version.  I soon found that the requires 32 bit libraries and it 
>  was like pulling on a bowl of spaghetti with more and more 32 bit libraries 
>  required.  It became easier to do the port (which has been successfully BTW).
>  
>  Fedora Core is fairly lean and mean with respect to the 32 bit libraries it 
>  installs (compared to the two dvd system that SUSE has).  So how do we 
>  install additional 32 bit libraries "safely"?  And how do we then maintain it 
>  when i386/i686/x86_64 packages are updated?
>  
>  Any guidance will be appreciated.
>  -- 
>  Gene
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 10
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:06:00 -0500 (EST)
>  From: csm(a)Lunar-Linux.org
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: Re: x86_64 updates
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, csm(a)Lunar-Linux.org spewed into the bitstream:
>  
>  >On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Rob Myers spewed into the bitstream:
>  >
>  >RM>On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:26, Chuck Mead wrote:
>  >RM>>
>  >RM>> Okay I just ran a test with this yum.conf entry:
>  >RM>>
>  >RM>>
>  >RM>> [updates]
>  >RM>> name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
>  >RM>> baseurl=http://people.redhat.com/csm/fedora/
>  >RM>>
>  >RM>> It worked fine.
>  >RM>>
>  >RM>> If there is something else you guys need or want up there let me know.
>  >RM>> For now the slocate update is present and accounted for.
>  >RM>
>  >RM>thank you for doing this.  your efforts have already saved me some
>  >RM>effort!
>  >RM>
>  >RM>i did some unscientific comparisons between an i386 box and my opteron
>  >RM>and think i noticed a few more packages that are out of sync.
>  >RM>
>  >RM>package    version on i386         version on x86-64
>  >RM>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >RM>net-snmp   net-snmp-5.1-2.1        net-snmp-5.0.9-2
>  >RM>kernel     kernel-2.4.22-1.2149    kernel-2.4.22-1.2135
>  >RM>glibc      glibc-2.3.2-101.4       glibc-2.3.2-101.1
>  >
>  >Okay... I have finished building the glibc update (I dunno what I did with
>  >the copy I built before) and am starting now on the kernel... then I will
>  >do the net-snmp and last I will post the updates on the people site.
>  >
>  >Included will be an i686 version of the glibc package (which you need).
>  
>  Welp... there is a quota on my people account so I cannot do the updates 
>  there... I am moving them to moongroup.com. I will post more info later.
>  
>  
>  - --
>  csm
>  Lunar Linux Project Lead
>  Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
>  Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> >  
> >  iD8DBQFAFycaq3bny/5+GAcRAkfgAJ9j+1p7JSkqN+5+Fn5npTKt3h+ZKQCfa7KN
> >  IkFr7lKXIYHNHqIszgaANwY=
> >  =gcPs
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 11
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:45:51 -0500
>  From: Chuck Mead <csm(a)lunar-linux.org&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: Re: x86_64 updates
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  csm(a)Lunar-Linux.org wrote:
>  | On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, csm(a)Lunar-Linux.org spewed into the bitstream:
>  |
>  |
>  | Welp... there is a quota on my people account so I cannot do the updates
>  | there... I am moving them to moongroup.com. I will post more info later.
>  
>  Alright the updates are posted. Here is the appropriate section from my
>  yum.conf:
>  
>  [updates]
>  name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
>  baseurl=http://www.moongroup.com/fedora/
>  
>  Here is the appropriate section from my /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources:
>  
>  yum updates http://www.moongroup.com/fedora/
>  
>  I don't think the bandwidth will be all that great but maybe someone
>  else might grab them and put them on a faster site.
>  
>  Also... rebuilding net-snmp-5.1-2.1.src.rpm fails badly. Here is the error:
>  
>  gcc -I/usr/include/rpm -DINET6 -O2 -g -pipe -Dlinux -I/usr/include/rpm
>  - -o .libs/snmpd snmpd.o  ./.libs/libnetsnmpagent.so
>  ./.libs/libnetsnmpmibs.so helpers/.libs/libnetsnmphelpers.so
>  - -L/usr/lib/lib -lwrap ../snmplib/.libs/libnetsnmp.so -ldl -lrpm -lrpmio
>  /usr/lib/libpopt.so -lbz2 -lz -lcrypto -lelf -lm  -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/lib64
>  /usr/lib/libpopt.so: could not read symbols: Invalid operation
>  collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>  make[1]: *** [snmpd] Error 1
>  make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/csm/redhat/BUILD/net-snmp-5.1/agent'
>  make: *** [subdirs] Error 1
>  error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.54899 (%build)
>  
>  
>  RPM build errors:
>  ~    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.54899 (%build)
>  
>  I bugzilla'd this already but I have no time to fool around with it as I
>  am off to Boston tomorrow morning for a couple of days.
>  
>  - --
>  csm
>  Lunar Linux Project Lead
>  Disclaimer: "I am not a curmudgeon! No... really..."
>  Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> >  Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >  
> >  iD8DBQFAFz5/q3bny/5+GAcRAtdpAJ9EFJJYt2uh1lpP0HZ5vebh75SCEgCfbuKL
> >  zzHbOQDZJKbe72Gwf7u6NPI=
> >  =C+vx
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 12
>  Subject: Fedora Bug Day Tomorrow: Jan 28th 2004: Bugzilla versus Mothra
>  From: Jef Spaleta <jspaleta(a)princeton.edu&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:57:55 -0500
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  
>  --=-iP9yOI8cU8wOr/fDq6UL
>  Content-Type: text/plain
>  Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>  
>  What:=20
>  Fedora Bug Day: General Fedora Triage=20
>  
>  Why: =20
>  Bugs bad...Closing bugs good
>  
>  Who: =20
>  Everybody and anybody who wants to help developers make better use of
>  their time. Programming experience, isn't necessary to make a worthwhile
>  contribution to the triaging effort. But programmers are welcome to. Who
>  knows you might even stumble on a bug you can fix by submitting your own
>  patch!  For the rest of us, just digging into bugzilla and finding
>  bugreports to mark as duplicates can help save developers some time.
>  
>  How: =20
>  Simply pick an existing Fedora Core bug to triage, jump on the=20
>  #fedora-bugs during the stated times on Weds Jan 28th and convince
>  me that the bug should be closed or marked up as a high priority for
>  review.=20
>  When:=20
>  Jan 28th 9am EST (or right after i get my first cup of coffee) to let's
>  say 6pm-ish EST (right before my wife tells me I need to drive her home
>  from work). Allow of course for some gaps in between when my boss and
>  found my hiding place and needs me to do something.
>  
>  No Clue What I'm talking about when I say the phrase Fedora Triage?
>  Take a quick look at the fedora-triage-list archives:
>  https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/fedora-triage-list/
>  These messages should hopefully tell you what its all about in more
>  detail:
>  http://tinyurl.com/ywma3 - Summary of my vision for Fedora Triage
>  http://tinyurl.com/23alw - My short term goals and long term plans
>  
>  -jef"technically I got this email out on Tuesday"spaleta
>  
>  --=-iP9yOI8cU8wOr/fDq6UL
>  Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
>  Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
>  
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> >  
> >  iD8DBQBAF0FTrWLDmRitRZURAlsYAJ9N0nEIW3BMo0aERFlPplEotS6cwwCePX4D
> >  i1Bfy1lo4DR42U5/IOyPwTU=
> >  =FBMi
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  
>  --=-iP9yOI8cU8wOr/fDq6UL--
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 13
>  Subject: anyone using raid?>
>  From: jason pearl <jpearl24(a)cox.net&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Organization: 
>  Date: 27 Jan 2004 23:09:39 -0700
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  
>  --=-UgkAD6RAneCWi3GtM/nP
>  Content-Type: text/plain
>  Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>  
>  is anyone using a raid card like highpoint rocketraid 454 and have it
>  working?
>  I can only get it to work on redhat 9 can anyone give me some info. i
>  have not found anything at websites. thanks=20
>  jason
>  
>  --=-UgkAD6RAneCWi3GtM/nP
>  Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
>  Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
>  
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> >  
> >  iD8DBQBAF1IiaxRK6/F2TDoRAubfAJ9GZp5FqJL++ahUqX7IVTHYa86WYACfQNri
> >  R1v4EhcWVFKAH3PbnPpNv08=
> >  =2azl
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  
>  --=-UgkAD6RAneCWi3GtM/nP--
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 14
>  Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:48:16 +0100
>  From: Michael Schwendt <ms-nospam-0306(a)arcor.de&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: Re: test
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:20:22 -0500, Chuck Mead wrote:
>  
>  > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  > Hash: SHA1
>  > 
>  > rod(a)dickersonbiz.xxx wrote:
>  > | The message contains Unicode characters and has been sent as a binary
>  > attachment.
>  > 
>  > bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!
>  > 
>  > Stupid viruses...
>  
>  I disagree. Actually, they've become more clever with recent
>  incarnations. Fetching valid e-mail addresses from address books or
>  harvesting new addresses from existing mail folders _is_ clever. I could
>  puke everytime I realize one of my addresses has been abused by a virus on
>  some infected system somewhere on the Internet and when I receive bounced
>  messages or quarantine notifications (which are much more stupid than the
>  virus).
>  
>  -- 
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 15
>  From: Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: Re: test
>  Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:56:00 +1000
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  
>  --Boundary-02=_nk3FARKTmyn8X6a
>  Content-Type: text/plain;
>    charset="iso-8859-1"
>  Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>  Content-Disposition: inline
>  
>  Once upon a time Wednesday 28 January 2004 6:48 pm, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  <snip>
>  >
>  > I disagree. Actually, they've become more clever with recent
>  > incarnations. Fetching valid e-mail addresses from address books or
>  > harvesting new addresses from existing mail folders _is_ clever. I could
>  > puke everytime I realize one of my addresses has been abused by a virus on
>  > some infected system somewhere on the Internet and when I receive bounced
>  > messages or quarantine notifications (which are much more stupid than the
>  > virus).
>  >
>  > --
>  
>  
>  I know what your saying ive been getting a few of these on a domain i used =
>  to=20
>  manage.  it was good to see clamav got it in its definitions quickly.
>  
>  though it is a good indication that we need something like mailscanner or=20
>  amavais in Fedora somewhere.=20
>  
>  Dennis
>  
>  --Boundary-02=_nk3FARKTmyn8X6a
>  Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
>  Content-Description: signature
>  
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> >  
> >  iD8DBQBAF3knGQLnD7l8/OERAhxRAJ42YqGS2rzDzsJGZU4R0/gFYU0kQACeOPQn
> >  zHm0zZd9cn+MVzf+cVjbMKQ=
> >  =3Gwk
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  
>  --Boundary-02=_nk3FARKTmyn8X6a--
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 16
>  Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:04:48 +0100
>  From: &quot;shrek-m(a)gmx.de&quot; <shrek-m(a)gmx.de&gt;
>  To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  Subject: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test)
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>  
>  >>though it is a good indication that we need something like mailscanner or 
>  >>amavais in Fedora somewhere. 
>  >>    
>  >>
>  
>  my experiences:
>  
>  http://www.amavis.org/
>    i tried it  ~2 years agoo, i wasnt impressed and removed it.
>   
>  
>  http://mailscanner.info
>    i tried it ~1/2 year agoo, i was impressed.
>    easy to install, upgrade, configure, ...
>  
>  ./install.sh
>    [no problems]
>  # chkconfig sendmail off
>  # service sendmail stop
>  # chkconfig MailScanner on
>  # service MailScanner start
>  
>  # upgrade_MailScanner_conf
>  
>  # rpm -q mailscanner
>  mailscanner-4.26.5-1
>  
>  # rpm -q --changelog mailscanner | grep  redhat
>  * Fr Jul 19 2002 Richard Keech <rkeech(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  
>  
>  # grep ^[a-zA-Z] /etc/MailScanner/MailScanner.conf
>  [......]
>  
>  
>  eg.
>  
>  # grep ^[a-zA-Z] /etc/MailScanner/MailScanner.conf | grep -i virus
>  Virus Scanning = yes
>  Virus Scanners = sophos
>  Virus Scanner Timeout = 300
>  Silent Viruses = HTML-IFrame All-Viruses
>  Still Deliver Silent Viruses = yes
>  Deleted Virus Message Report = %report-dir%/deleted.virus.message.txt
>  Stored Virus Message Report = %report-dir%/stored.virus.message.txt
>  Sender Virus Report = %report-dir%/sender.virus.report.txt
>  Notify Senders Of Viruses = no
>  Virus Modify Subject = yes
>  Virus Subject Text = {Virus?}
>  Notice Signature = -- \nMailScanner\nEmail Virus 
>  Scanner\nwww.mailscanner.info
>  Virus Scanner Definitions = %etc-dir%/virus.scanners.conf
>  
>  $ grep ^[a-zA-Z] /etc/MailScanner/MailScanner.conf | grep -i spam
>  Spam Header = X-%org-name%-MailScanner-SpamCheck:
>  Spam Score Header = X-%org-name%-MailScanner-SpamScore:
>  Spam Score Character = s
>  SpamScore Number Instead Of Stars = no
>  Detailed Spam Report = yes
>  Include Scores In SpamAssassin Report = yes
>  Spam Modify Subject = yes
>  Spam Subject Text = {Spam?}
>  High Scoring Spam Modify Subject = yes
>  High Scoring Spam Subject Text = {Spam?}
>  Spam List Definitions = %etc-dir%/spam.lists.conf
>  Spam Checks = yes
>  Spam List = ORDB-RBL Infinite-Monkeys # MAPS-RBL+ costs money (except 
>  .ac.uk)
>  Spam Domain List =
>  Spam Lists To Reach High Score = 5
>  Spam List Timeout = 10
>  Max Spam List Timeouts = 7
>  Is Definitely Not Spam = %rules-dir%/spam.whitelist.rules
>  Is Definitely Spam = no
>  Definite Spam Is High Scoring = no
>  Use SpamAssassin = yes
>  Max SpamAssassin Size = 90000
>  Required SpamAssassin Score = 5
>  High SpamAssassin Score = 20
>  SpamAssassin Auto Whitelist = no
>  SpamAssassin Prefs File = %etc-dir%/spam.assassin.prefs.conf
>  SpamAssassin Timeout = 40
>  Max SpamAssassin Timeouts = 20
>  Check SpamAssassin If On Spam List = yes
>  Always Include SpamAssassin Report = yes
>  Spam Score = yes
>  Spam Actions = deliver
>  High Scoring Spam Actions = deliver
>  Non Spam Actions = deliver
>  Sender Spam Report = %report-dir%/sender.spam.report.txt
>  Sender Spam List Report = %report-dir%/sender.spam.rbl.report.txt
>  Sender SpamAssassin Report = %report-dir%/sender.spam.sa.report.txt
>  Inline Spam Warning = %report-dir%/inline.spam.warning.txt
>  Recipient Spam Report = %report-dir%/recipient.spam.report.txt
>  Log Spam = no
>  Log Non Spam = no
>  SpamAssassin User State Dir =
>  SpamAssassin Install Prefix =
>  SpamAssassin Site Rules Dir = /etc/mail/spamassassin
>  SpamAssassin Local Rules Dir =
>  SpamAssassin Default Rules Dir =
>  Debug SpamAssassin = no
>  
>  -- 
>  shrek-m
>  
>  
>  
>  --__--__--
>  
>  Message: 17
>  From: "Denis Croombs" <denis(a)croombs.org&gt;
>  To: <fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  Subject: Re: a Mail virus Scanner (was Re: test)
>  Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:22:16 -0000
>  Reply-To: fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
>  
>  > >>though it is a good indication that we need something like mailscanner
>  or
>  > >>amavais in Fedora somewhere.
>  > >>
>  > >>
>  > http://mailscanner.info
>  >   i tried it ~1/2 year agoo, i was impressed.
>  >   easy to install, upgrade, configure, ...
>  >
>  I can also support mailscanner, I have it on lots of systems and my
>  customers systems and it is simply the very best I have come across. Also
>  the support on the email list is also very good.
>  
>  Denis Croombs
>  www.just-servers.co.uk
>  www.just-hosting.net
>

[Charles Curley]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:26:16PM -0500, Rod Dickerson wrote:
>  Hey- normally I don't get too excited about viruses b/c I use
> postfix
>  and no windows clients.... but I saw a reply in here that said it came
>  from me.  Since I have not sent anything to the list is a long while I
>  am worried...  Can someone please do me a favor and check the headers
>  and see if it really did come from rod(a)dickersonbiz.com or if that is
>  the virus playing games again????  Thanks and sorry if it was me... 
I doubt it was from you. These days, most email Trojans scan the
address book of the victim's copy of Outlook, and use it as a source
of email addresses. Not only do they send to that list, but they
masquerade as having come from those addresses.

As a point of netiquette, when replying please trim the quoted
material. This was a 30KB message for one paragraph of payload. Thanks

-- 

Charles Curley                  /"\    ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software       \ /    Respect for open standards
and/or writing?                  X     No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley.com    / \    No M$ Word docs in email

Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0  809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB