from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747B916F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:31:17 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:31:17 +0100 (IST)
from outgoing.securityfocus.com (outgoing2.securityfocus.com
    [205.206.231.26]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g8NFICC22953 for <jm@jmason.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:18:12 +0100
from lists.securityfocus.com (lists.securityfocus.com
    [205.206.231.19]) by outgoing.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
    AAB618F4BC; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:21:13 -0600 (MDT)
Your pets will be disembowled if you do not keep up payments.
From secprog-return-510-jm=jmason.org@securityfocus.com  Mon Sep 23 18:31:18 2002

reply to the mail from Ben Mord (bmord@icon-nicholson.com):
> Hi,
Hello,
< ... snipped for brevity ... >
> ... This concept could also be
> applied to the application servers, and even the database server partitions
> (except for those partitions which contain the table data files, of course.)
Although the data might just be the information that needs protecting.
> Does anyone do this already? Or is this a new concept?
I've seen this implemented for a shell server, although they chose
to have their root on a CD-WR in a CD-R drive. Which meant that even
when compromised it was only possible to examine other users data.
AFAIR(emember) they just swapped CD's when a root exploit was found.
> Thanks for any opinions,
NP
blaze your trail
--
redhat
'I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds'

On 05 September 2002, Tim Peters said:
> Greg Ward is
> currently capturing a stream coming into python.org, and I hope we can get a
> more modern, and cleaner, test set out of that.
Not yet -- still working on the required config changes.  But I have a
cunning plan...
> But if that stream contains
> any private email, it may not be ethically possible to make that available.
It will!  Part of my cunning plan involves something like this:
if folder == "accepted":             # ie. not suspected junk mail
if (len(recipients) == 1 and
recipients[0] in ("guido@python.org", "barry@python.org", ...)):
folder = "personal"
If you (and Guido, Barry, et. al.) prefer, I could change that last
statement to "folder = None", so the mail won't be saved at all.  I
*might* also add a "and sender doesn't look like -bounce-*, -request,
-admin, ..." clause to that if statement.
> Can you think of anyplace to get a large, shareable ham sample apart from a
> public mailing list?  Everyone's eager to share their spam, but spam is so
> much alike in so many ways that's the easy half of the data collection
> problem.
I believe the SpamAssassin maintainers have a scheme whereby the corpus
of non-spam is distributed, ie. several people have bodies of non-spam
that they use for collectively evolving the SA score set.  If that
sounds vague, it matches my level of understanding.
Greg
--
Greg Ward <gward@python.net>                         http://www.gerg.ca/
Reality is for people who can't handle science fiction.