Spam Attacks

[Martin Hepworth]

On 14 September 2011 10:14, Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 September 2011 20:10, Jason Ede <J.Ede at birchenallhowden.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > Just pulled up the stats for the incoming postfix instance on one of our
> servers for yesterday, although not quite at the levels you have it still
> seems to show the same pattern.
> >
> > I've not looked too deeply at what makes up the rejections yet if it is
> xen or the other rbls or invalid addresses etc...
> >
> > Per-Hour Traffic Summary
> >    time          received  delivered   deferred    bounced     rejected
> >    --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >    0000-0100          79         80          0          0        273
> >    0100-0200          74         75          0          0        261
> >    0200-0300         101        101          0          0        297
> >    0300-0400         115        115          0          0        510
> >    0400-0500          91         91          0          0        327
> >    0500-0600         125        125          0          0        325
> >    0600-0700         103        103          0          0        510
> >    0700-0800         151        154          0          0        597
> >    0800-0900         326        337          0          0        760
> >    0900-1000         443        455          0          0        970
> >    1000-1100         628        644          0          0       1272
> >    1100-1200         655        680          0          0        774
> >    1200-1300         711        724          0          0       2597
> >    1300-1400         630        665          0          0       7021
> >    1400-1500         630        665          0          0       3998
> >    1500-1600         657        674          0          0        946
> >    1600-1700         584        602          0          0       4129
> >    1700-1800         450        459          0          0       6995
> >    1800-1900         264        268          0          0       2401
> >    1900-2000         215        214          0          0        502
> >    2000-2100         200        205          0          0        425
> >    2100-2200         184        191          0          0        477
> >    2200-2300         149         51          4          0        271
> >    2300-2400         137        139        111          0        171
> >
> > Jason
>
> I've got pflogsumm daily reports stored since August -08, and apart
> from natural differences (layoffs making the total volume drop,
> temporarily driving up the "no such address"-rejections back in -09) a
> cursory comparision of a semi-random selection show no real difference
> during the last months (well, there's always a lull during the
> summer/vacation period:-).
>
> But that  might only show quirks of my particular setup, volume and
> usage patterns of my userbase etc. I suspect an ISP-type organization
> would be more likely to ... attract ... badness:-).
>
> (snip)
> Cheers!
> --
> -- Glenn
>

seeing similar increases in spam (bursts) myself all to unknown recipients
and we're not an ISP, but only to one of the 4 domains I handle.

-- 
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20110914/ac9ecad3/attachment.html