Re: user {}
Johan Segernäs <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.irc.bopm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andy Smith wrote: > I think only by duplicating the test you wish to do, like this: > Using these settings, users from safe.example.com will be subject to > "default" and "trusted" scanners. Users from evil.example.com will > be subject to "default" and "untrusted" scanners, and users from > random.example.com will get only the "default" scanner. But this isn't exactly what I want do to. I'd like users from safe.example.com to be scanned with 'trusted', random.example.com to be scanned by 'default' and unstrusted with 'extended', if I try to simplify it a bit. I trust .se and some other domains and I dont want more abuse-reports than necessary and would like to exclude them from portscans. How about you people who use BOPM, how often to you get abuse-reports on you? Does people care about portscans anymore? Me myself is way to lazy to report portscans now but I used to do it a few years ago. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFADRblKsypvPn9t1ARAsDzAJ90OHwyHCe0k7Ufplm7U6pzROf3vACfeGmK AGMh7KlYw9i9kQYrg8ZTn2I= =uNVD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----