filtr bloker

Widzisz posty znalezione dla hasła: filtr bloker

Temat: MIMEDefang - akceptowanie MIME type message/partial
Jak w³¹czyĂŚ w MIMEDefang akceptowanie nagÂłówka

MIME type message/partia ?

Albo jak wy³¹czyĂŚ po prostu blokade tego która jest w configu :

filter_multipart :

# Block message/partial parts    if (lc($type) eq "message/partial")
{        md_graphdefang_log('message/partial');        action_bounce("MIME
type message/partial not accepted here");        return;    }

oraz w

filter :

# Block message/partial parts    if (lc($type) eq "message/partial")
{        md_graphdefang_log('message/partial');        action_bounce("MIME
type message/partial not accepted here");        return
ion_discard();    }

Wyświetl wszystkie odpowiedzi z tego wątku

Temat: Jeszcze raz Milter

PW <wa@to126.internetdsl.tpnet.pl_no_spamwrote:
| A po co ci dobra dusza? :-)
| Wystarczy zajrzec do dokumentacji miltera w sendmailu - konkretnie plik
| libmilter/README - tam jest bardzo prosty przyklad uzycia miltera.
| A co do pytania - czy filtr musi obslugiwac wszystkie callbacki -
| odpowiedz brzmi - nie - w tym pliku, ktorego nazwe podalem jest wlasnie
| przyklad ze nie wszystkie trzeba obslugiwac.
| Obslugujesz te, ktore potrzebujesz (no chyba ze sie myle)

No właśnie mi się wydaje, że w tym przykładzie są wszystkie callbacki
zastosowane. Ja generalnie potrzebuje (i usilnie próbuje od dwóch dni :) )
tak przerobić ten skrypt, żeby dodawał nadawcę tylko wtedy, gdy pole from
lub to zawiera określony adres.

A u mnie (8.12.9) nie sa wszystkie wykorzystane:

struct smfiDesc smfilter =
        "SampleFilter", /* filter name */
        SMFI_VERSION,   /* version code -- do not change */
        SMFIF_ADDHDRS,  /* flags */
        NULL,           /* connection info filter */
        NULL,           /* SMTP HELO command filter */
        mlfi_envfrom,   /* envelope sender filter */
        NULL,           /* envelope recipient filter */
        mlfi_header,    /* header filter */
        mlfi_eoh,       /* end of header */
        mlfi_body,      /* body block filter */
        mlfi_eom,       /* end of message */
        mlfi_abort,     /* message aborted */
        mlfi_close      /* connection cleanup */


zobacz ile NULL-i


Wyświetl wszystkie odpowiedzi z tego wątku

Temat: IP podłączonego klienta
Był 2 styczeń (niedziela) gdy o godzinie. 13:37:57, na,
Kamikazee pod wpływem natchnienia wystukał(a):

  jak juz uzywasz to proponuje wersja by shadowcast


                   Release Information:                    

          This is finally the new and last IPfilter.dat for 2004. Yes,
          the 27th revision is finally done.

          The main focus this time was getting the info of all the
          TRIBES servers together and implement them. As usual we also
          blocked a new list of KETAMINE-, LSD- and NeoLSD-users.

          Our main thanks goes out to the crew of Nexus23 who were
          more than just helpful, in fact their input was the main
          drive behind getting this one out!

          ---------------PLEASE READ THIS, IMPORTANT!-----------------

          ONLY ABOUT 6.500?

          Well, the reason behind this is because this filter has been
          revised much more efficiently than before, again to the
          Nexus23 guys.
          The main reason for that much less IPs is because we made the
          same mistake as Bluetack/Methlabs and used to include the
          "City of..." or "Town of..." IPs, IPs and IPranges that do not
          need to be banned at all. It took us until rev. 27 to realize
          that, but we all make mistakes, and after testing this filter
          since the beginning of December we noticed ZERO attacks or
          even pings from those IPs, hence it is time for them to go.
          The good thing now is that this filter is not only smaller,
          but you gain about 40% of the resources the old filter used
          to take up for emule, making your mule much more efficient.

          Again, all props for this trick to the Nexus23 guys!


           - revised IPlist from EmulEspana/Nexus23 (26.12.04)
           - several IPranges changed or amended
           - added  2 ranges from anti-p2p authorities from the U.S.
           - added 12 ranges from NeoMule
           - added  5 ranges from Ketamine-users/spammers        
           - added 23 ranges from LSD-/NeoLSD mods
           - added TRIBES server ranges (did not count them -L_A)

oraz skąd ją pobrać?!!!.ShadowCast.rar


Wyświetl wszystkie odpowiedzi z tego wątku

Temat: Kremy z filtrami niebezpieczne??????????
Dziewczyny dzieki za infomacje o TiO2, skoro sie tym zajmujecie moze
podrzucicie jakies linki czy artykuly, byc moze macie dostep do najnowszych
informacji. Milo, ze dzielicie sie wiedza, zadne to wymadrzanie!
> Nie moge sie zgodzic z inf ze TiO2 jest filtrem mineralnym odbijajacym
Nie wiem od jakiej strony zajmujesz sie TiO2, w kazdym razie definicja
dwitlenku tytanu jako filtru UV jest wlasnie taka. Do filtrow UV
mineralnych/fizycznych zaliczane sa: TiO2, ZnO, te dwa sa njabardziej popularne
i najwiecej o nich wiadomo, ponadto tlenek zelaza, kaolin, talk,
Podaje troche infomacji o zastosowaniu TiO2 jako filtru UV, fragmenty

"Physical UV filters

Physical sunscreens, also known as physical or inorganic filters, act
predominately by reflecting or scattering UV radiation away from skin. This
category includes talc, kaolin, iron oxides, red petrolatum, zinc oxide and
titanium dioxide, with the two last being the most popular. They are non-
sensitizers and are useful when chemical sunscreens cannot be tolerated.
Because they are relatively inert, safe, stable, and non-irritating, they are
the first choice of many people.
The large particle forms of zinc oxide (ZnO) and titanium dioxide (TiO2)
provide protection from 200 to 700 nm. They were unpopular in the past because
of their cosmetic inelegance. Products formulated with large particle minerals
leave a thick, opaque white cast on the skin. Recent technical advances in
manufacturing and formulation allow for use of particles less than 200 nm
across, which provides near transparency at low concentrations. These small
particles are termed microfine or ultrafine, depending on their size, and the
process of reducing their size is known as micronization. Titanium dioxide,
even when micronized, tends to be more opaque than micronized zinc oxide, but
zinc oxide, too, may also be opaque when used at higher concentrations. Larger
particle forms of physical filters block UVA more effectively but are less
effective at blocking UVB,[93],[94] whereas micronized forms are highly
effective at blocking UVB and UVA II with a steep or gradual drop off in
absorbance in the upper UVA I range.
The extent of UVA coverage of microfine physical block particles depends on
the primary particle size. This is illustrated below where absorbance spectra
for primary particles of different sizes of titanium dioxide as distributed by
Uniqema[95] (fig 9) and zinc oxide from the Kobo Corporation[96] (fig 10) are
shown. The attenuation characteristics vary greatly for titanium dioxide not
only in their UVB, but also in their UVA absorbance (320-400 nm) spectra,
whereas the different sized particle formulations of zinc oxide tend to
attenuate both UVA and UVB more uniformly through a wider range of primary
particle sizes. Formulations consisting of smaller particle sizes yield more
transparency than larger particle sizes for a given concentration of particles.
Some sunscreen manufacturers may use particles in more than one size to get a
good balance between esthetics and attenuation.
Generally, micronized titanium dioxide in particle sizes of approximately
100 nm provide good coverage up to 340-360 nm with a gentle or steep drop off
after that point, while micronized forms of zinc oxide provide essentially flat
coverage to 380 nm or higher with a steep drop off beyond. Table 4 provides
major manufacturers of microfine physical blocker particles. The best way to
determine the extent of UVA coverage of a particular physical UV screen is to
consult the supplier for product UV absorbance or attenuation curves. "
wiecej tutaj:

Micronized titanium dioxide particles block UV rays not only by scattering and
reflecting, but also by absorbing, which could generate free radicals that
could be damaging.[179],[180],[181],[182],[183] This feature of titanium
dioxide has prompted some people to limit their use of it as well as chemical
UV screens. It has also spurred manufacturers to find ways to reduce particle
reactivity. Particles coated with silicone or a similar substance, have been
show to be less reactive than uncoated particles.[184]
If sunscreens stay in the epidermis, the effects of free radicals may not
matter, since the epidermis is made of largely dead skin cells, but if they
penetrate more deeply and are then excited by UV light, there may be damage to
living tissue.[185]
Recent studies have shown that micronized titanium dioxide particles,
regardless of size or shape, stay within the outermost layers of the stratum
corneum and do not penetrate to the deeper dermal layers[186],[187],[188] but
an earlier small scale study found that that levels of titanium dioxide in the
epidermis and dermis of subjects who applied microfine titanium dioxide to
their skin were higher than the levels of titanium dioxide found in controls.
[189] This finding has been questioned by many experts because there is no
apparent method of transport for the particles. It may be an artifact of
contaminated measurement devices.[190]
The sunscreen solvent plays a role in how deeply a UV filter penetrates the
skin, with oil in water emulsions (light lotions or gels) penetrating more
deeply than water in oil emulsions (creams) or petrolatum (ointment) vehicles.
[191] Alcohol is a known penetration enhancer, and is often used in the
lightest or gel base sunscreen formulations.
Microfine zinc oxide, which absorbs UV rays to a limited extent, also
generates free radicals on UV exposure, but its reactivity is far lower than
that of titanium dioxide and is essentially insignificant when the particles
have a protective coating, usually silcone-based34. Microfine zinc oxide’s
superior protection compared to microfine titanium dioxide in UVA between 340
and 380 nm[192] coupled with its lower potential for reactivity make it the
first choice for many people. However, titanium dioxide is more efficient than
zinc oxide at filtering UVB and short wave UVA, and a lower concentration of
titanium dioxide than zinc oxide is needed to achieve a target SPF in a
sunscreen formulation.
Numery zrodel podane w nawiasach, tutaj jest pelna

Wyświetl wszystkie odpowiedzi z tego wątku


Powered by WordPress dla [tu i tam]. Design by Free WordPress Themes.