RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Also see: http://pinkbell.net/ Best Regards, Phillip B. Holmes Media Resolutions Inc. Macromedia Alliance Partner http://www.mediares.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101 972-889-0201 |Ext. 101 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt > Robertson > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > Keith wrote: > >I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that > came up... > > Well, doesn't that just suck? Hopefully the 2001 date on > that post is indicative of a changed landscape, otherwise > they're pretty much *all* in league with the devil. > > > Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the > Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an > E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe > Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- > [This E-mail scanned for > viruses by Declude Virus] > > BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Holmes;Phillip;B. FN:Phillip B. Holmes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ORG:Media Resolutions Inc.;IT TITLE:Sr. Consultant TEL;WORK;VOICE:(972) 889-0201 TEL;CELL;VOICE:214-995-6175 ADR;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;1-888-395-4678;16415 Addison=0D=0ASuite 610;Addison;TX;75001;United States = of America LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1-888-395-4678=0D=0A16415 Addison=0D=0ASuite 610=0D=0AAddison, TX 75001=0D= =0AUnited States of America EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:20030910T014847Z END:VCARD
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Matt - Yes. I worked for SBC for 10 years. Keith- Plug in sbc pink contracts. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sbc+pink+contracts&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en Best Regards, Phillip B. Holmes Media Resolutions Inc. Macromedia Alliance Partner http://www.mediares.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101 972-889-0201 |Ext. 101 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt > Robertson > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 2:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > Keith wrote: > >I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that > came up... > > Well, doesn't that just suck? Hopefully the 2001 date on > that post is indicative of a changed landscape, otherwise > they're pretty much *all* in league with the devil. > > > Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the > Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an > E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe > Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- > [This E-mail scanned for > viruses by Declude Virus] > > BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Holmes;Phillip;B. FN:Phillip B. Holmes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ORG:Media Resolutions Inc.;IT TITLE:Sr. Consultant TEL;WORK;VOICE:(972) 889-0201 TEL;CELL;VOICE:214-995-6175 ADR;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;1-888-395-4678;16415 Addison=0D=0ASuite 610;Addison;TX;75001;United States = of America LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1-888-395-4678=0D=0A16415 Addison=0D=0ASuite 610=0D=0AAddison, TX 75001=0D= =0AUnited States of America EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:20030910T014847Z END:VCARD
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Keith wrote: >I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that came up... Well, doesn't that just suck? Hopefully the 2001 date on that post is indicative of a changed landscape, otherwise they're pretty much *all* in league with the devil. Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
I plugged pink contracts into Google and here's the first link that came up... http://mail.spamcon.org/pipermail/suespammers/2001-February/000837.html Keith Purtell, Web/Network Administrator VantageMed Operations (Kansas City) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt Robertson > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > Phillip wrote: > > Two words: pink contracts > > 9 syllables: what the heck are you talking about? > > I've had nightmares setting up PacBell/SBC DSL that would fill a book, > but that was incompetent tech installation and support. Once the > service is up its always been just great; for years running. > > And besides, here in central California you either work with > SBC or you > work with someone who is leasing from them. > > Wazzup? > > > Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com > > > --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Phillip wrote: > Two words: pink contracts 9 syllables: what the heck are you talking about? I've had nightmares setting up PacBell/SBC DSL that would fill a book, but that was incompetent tech installation and support. Once the service is up its always been just great; for years running. And besides, here in central California you either work with SBC or you work with someone who is leasing from them. Wazzup? Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Two words: pink contracts > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd > - Smart Mail > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:17 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > >and since SBC is obviously not an ethical > > alternative, > > Whets using SBC as a provider got to do with ethics? > > Todd > > - Original Message - > From: "Phillip B. Holmes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:47 PM > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > > Mathew, > > > > Correction there.. > > > > .8 is no longer used and is basically empty. > > .6 has a higher # of false positives than the rest. Not > many, but if > > you want to play it safe, do not use .6. > > > > And that is correct: > > Cox = Cox Cable > > > > It is my home connection and since SBC is obviously not an ethical > > alternative, Cox is the lesser of all evils. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > Phillip B. Holmes > > Media Resolutions Inc. > > Macromedia Alliance Partner > > http://www.mediares.com > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101 > > 972-889-0201 |Ext. 101 > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew > > > Bramble > > > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > > > > > > > .8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on a > > > system because a network administrator saw fit to > complain. I would > > > think that > > > most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with > some sort of > > > firewall that got tripped by the testing. Spammers don't > > > rely on open > > > relays in their own netblocks. I don't see any reason to use > > > this test. > > > > > > .6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist > in nature. > > > Less people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider > > > starts blocking millions of legitimate users. It ignores false > > > positives and > > > becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that > > > doesn't help > > > me much. My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they > > > just want > > > their E-mail from a friend or business associate. > > > > > > Unfortunately this goes both ways. Cox recently started blocking > > > outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of their > > > markets. They did this in order to combat the spam coming > from their > > > users. The > > > net result is that they might find their way off of some > > > blacklists, but > > > E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they > can provide to > > > their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server. > > > > > > I wouldn't call that a win. Unfortunately it seems that > there are > > > many overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is > > > due to what > > > compels someone to start offering a blacklist for > > > free...they're fed up > > > and they're not going to take it anymore! > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > Eje Gustafsson wrote: > > > > > > >If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get > > > >blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide. > > > > > > > >.6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending > > > > spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS. This > > > > zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting > > > > service providers, this could be for providing > > > > websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer. Spam > > > > supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are > > > > out' basis, where the third spam will cause the > > > > supporter to be blocked. > > > > > > > >.8 List of hosts demanding they are never tested by > > > > SORBS. > > > > > > > >So of course someone that host spammers will demand they > never be > > > >tested. Almost should be
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
>and since SBC is obviously not an ethical > alternative, Whets using SBC as a provider got to do with ethics? Todd - Original Message - From: "Phillip B. Holmes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 8:47 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > Mathew, > > Correction there.. > > .8 is no longer used and is basically empty. > .6 has a higher # of false positives than the rest. Not many, but if you > want to play it safe, do not use .6. > > And that is correct: > Cox = Cox Cable > > It is my home connection and since SBC is obviously not an ethical > alternative, Cox is the lesser of all evils. > > Best Regards, > > > Phillip B. Holmes > Media Resolutions Inc. > Macromedia Alliance Partner > http://www.mediares.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101 > 972-889-0201 |Ext. 101 > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Matthew Bramble > > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > > > > .8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on > > a system > > because a network administrator saw fit to complain. I would > > think that > > most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with some sort of > > firewall that got tripped by the testing. Spammers don't > > rely on open > > relays in their own netblocks. I don't see any reason to use > > this test. > > > > .6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist in > > nature. Less > > people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider starts > > blocking millions of legitimate users. It ignores false > > positives and > > becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that > > doesn't help > > me much. My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they > > just want > > their E-mail from a friend or business associate. > > > > Unfortunately this goes both ways. Cox recently started blocking > > outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of > > their markets. > > They did this in order to combat the spam coming from their > > users. The > > net result is that they might find their way off of some > > blacklists, but > > E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they can provide to > > their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server. > > > > I wouldn't call that a win. Unfortunately it seems that > > there are many > > overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is > > due to what > > compels someone to start offering a blacklist for > > free...they're fed up > > and they're not going to take it anymore! > > > > Matt > > > > > > Eje Gustafsson wrote: > > > > >If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get > > >blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide. > > > > > >.6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending > > > spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS. This > > > zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting > > > service providers, this could be for providing > > > websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer. Spam > > > supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are > > > out' basis, where the third spam will cause the > > > supporter to be blocked. > > > > > >.8 List of hosts demanding they are never tested by > > > SORBS. > > > > > >So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be > > >tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO. > > > > > >Either way with declude there is not reason to directly > > block anything > > >just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight. > > > > > >Best regards, > > > Eje Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com > > >Phone : 620-231- Fax : 620-231-4066 > > > - Your Full Time Professionals - > > >Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/ > > > > > > > > > > --- > > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > > (http://www.declude.com)] > > > > --- > > This E-mail came from the >
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Absolutely agreed. pbh > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Matthew Bramble > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > Don't get me wrong, I will use .6 (and will configure it probably > tonight since I finished some other testing), but I will > score it fairly > low because anything that tags something like Cox is > problematic. Same > goes for FIVETEN, they are tagging Yahoo/SBC. > > It's good to know when a particular list is blocking a major > provider. > Hopefully lists like SpamCop, which I rely on heavily, won't ever do > something like this. > > Matt > > > Phillip B. Holmes wrote: > > >Mathew, > > > >Correction there.. > > > >.8 is no longer used and is basically empty. > >.6 has a higher # of false positives than the rest. Not many, but if > >you want to play it safe, do not use .6. > > > >And that is correct: > >Cox = Cox Cable > > > >It is my home connection and since SBC is obviously not an ethical > >alternative, Cox is the lesser of all evils. > > > >Best Regards, > > > > > >Phillip B. Holmes > >Media Resolutions Inc. > >Macromedia Alliance Partner > >http://www.mediares.com > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101 > >972-889-0201 |Ext. 101 > > > > > > > > > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > >>Matthew Bramble > >>Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > >> > >> > >>.8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on > >>a system > >>because a network administrator saw fit to complain. I would > >>think that > >>most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with > some sort of > >>firewall that got tripped by the testing. Spammers don't > >>rely on open > >>relays in their own netblocks. I don't see any reason to use > >>this test. > >> > >>.6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist in > >>nature. Less > >>people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider starts > >>blocking millions of legitimate users. It ignores false > >>positives and > >>becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that > >>doesn't help > >>me much. My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they > >>just want > >>their E-mail from a friend or business associate. > >> > >>Unfortunately this goes both ways. Cox recently started blocking > >>outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of > >>their markets. > >>They did this in order to combat the spam coming from their > >>users. The > >>net result is that they might find their way off of some > >>blacklists, but > >>E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they can > provide to > >>their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server. > >> > >>I wouldn't call that a win. Unfortunately it seems that > >>there are many > >>overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is > >>due to what > >>compels someone to start offering a blacklist for > >>free...they're fed up > >>and they're not going to take it anymore! > >> > >>Matt > >> > >> > >>Eje Gustafsson wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get > >>>blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide. > >>> > >>>.6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending > >>> spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS. This > >>> zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting > >>> service providers, this could be for providing > >>> websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer. Spam > >>> supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are > >>> out' basis, where the third spam will cause the > >>> supporter to be blocked. > >>> > >>>.8 List of hosts demanding they are never tested by > >>>SORBS. > >>> > >>>So
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Don't get me wrong, I will use .6 (and will configure it probably tonight since I finished some other testing), but I will score it fairly low because anything that tags something like Cox is problematic. Same goes for FIVETEN, they are tagging Yahoo/SBC. It's good to know when a particular list is blocking a major provider. Hopefully lists like SpamCop, which I rely on heavily, won't ever do something like this. Matt Phillip B. Holmes wrote: Mathew, Correction there.. .8 is no longer used and is basically empty. .6 has a higher # of false positives than the rest. Not many, but if you want to play it safe, do not use .6. And that is correct: Cox = Cox Cable It is my home connection and since SBC is obviously not an ethical alternative, Cox is the lesser of all evils. Best Regards, Phillip B. Holmes Media Resolutions Inc. Macromedia Alliance Partner http://www.mediares.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101 972-889-0201 |Ext. 101 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Bramble Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM .8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on a system because a network administrator saw fit to complain. I would think that most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with some sort of firewall that got tripped by the testing. Spammers don't rely on open relays in their own netblocks. I don't see any reason to use this test. .6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist in nature. Less people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider starts blocking millions of legitimate users. It ignores false positives and becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that doesn't help me much. My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they just want their E-mail from a friend or business associate. Unfortunately this goes both ways. Cox recently started blocking outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of their markets. They did this in order to combat the spam coming from their users. The net result is that they might find their way off of some blacklists, but E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they can provide to their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server. I wouldn't call that a win. Unfortunately it seems that there are many overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is due to what compels someone to start offering a blacklist for free...they're fed up and they're not going to take it anymore! Matt Eje Gustafsson wrote: If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide. .6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS. This zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting service providers, this could be for providing websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer. Spam supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are out' basis, where the third spam will cause the supporter to be blocked. .8 List of hosts demanding they are never tested by SORBS. So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO. Either way with declude there is not reason to directly block anything just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight. Best regards, Eje Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com Phone : 620-231- Fax : 620-231-4066 - Your Full Time Professionals - Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Mathew, Correction there.. .8 is no longer used and is basically empty. .6 has a higher # of false positives than the rest. Not many, but if you want to play it safe, do not use .6. And that is correct: Cox = Cox Cable It is my home connection and since SBC is obviously not an ethical alternative, Cox is the lesser of all evils. Best Regards, Phillip B. Holmes Media Resolutions Inc. Macromedia Alliance Partner http://www.mediares.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1-888-395-4678 |Ext. 101 972-889-0201 |Ext. 101 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Matthew Bramble > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > .8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on > a system > because a network administrator saw fit to complain. I would > think that > most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with some sort of > firewall that got tripped by the testing. Spammers don't > rely on open > relays in their own netblocks. I don't see any reason to use > this test. > > .6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist in > nature. Less > people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider starts > blocking millions of legitimate users. It ignores false > positives and > becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that > doesn't help > me much. My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they > just want > their E-mail from a friend or business associate. > > Unfortunately this goes both ways. Cox recently started blocking > outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of > their markets. > They did this in order to combat the spam coming from their > users. The > net result is that they might find their way off of some > blacklists, but > E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they can provide to > their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server. > > I wouldn't call that a win. Unfortunately it seems that > there are many > overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is > due to what > compels someone to start offering a blacklist for > free...they're fed up > and they're not going to take it anymore! > > Matt > > > Eje Gustafsson wrote: > > >If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get > >blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide. > > > >.6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending > > spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS. This > > zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting > > service providers, this could be for providing > > websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer. Spam > > supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are > > out' basis, where the third spam will cause the > > supporter to be blocked. > > > >.8 List of hosts demanding they are never tested by > > SORBS. > > > >So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be > >tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO. > > > >Either way with declude there is not reason to directly > block anything > >just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight. > > > >Best regards, > > Eje Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com > >Phone : 620-231- Fax : 620-231-4066 > > - Your Full Time Professionals - > >Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/ > > > > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the > Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an > E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe > Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- > [This E-mail scanned for > viruses by Declude Virus] > > > --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Keith wrote: >Would you post your configuration that works for you? and anyone else >that's willing to do so? I'd like to see some examples of successful >configurations to learn from. Here's mine. Weights 0-12 are OK, weights 13-19 get bounced and 20+ gets deleted. Neither bounces nor deletes should be done without understanding *exactly* what the consequences are. While I get awfully close to zero false positives, I also wind up bouncing about 20% of the stuff declude bags. That works out to about 11000 bounce messages last month. Maybe a dozen actully reached a person. However those dozen would be angry customers wondering why their mail got deleted. Instead the bounce becomes a positive customer service. I need to experiment and see how many items hit weight 18, 17, 16 etc. to see if I can cut down on the bounces safely. I'll bet I can. You can see my latest stats here: http://mysecretbase.com/mailsystem.html. I also wrote up how the system works for customer information. What I'm describing is Declude Virus, Declude Junkmail and Imail 8 anti-spam working together. Hope this helps, Matt Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSB Designs, Inc. http://mysecretbase.com BLITZEDALL ip4ropm.blitzed.org * 2 0 CBL ip4rcbl.abuseat.org 127.0.0.2 3 0 COMPU ip4rblackhole.compu.net 127.0.0.4 3 0 DORKS ip4rorbs.dorkslayers.com127.0.0.2 5 DSBLip4rlist.dsbl.org * 5 0 EASYNET-DNSBL ip4rblackholes.easynet.nl 127.0.0.2 5 0 EASYNET-PROXIES ip4rproxies.blackholes.easynet.nl * 2 0 FABEL ip4rspamsources.fabel.dk* 2 0 FIVETEN-SRC ip4rblackholes.five-ten-sg.com 127.0.0.2 2 0 FIVETEN-SPAMSUP ip4rblackholes.five-ten-sg.com 127.0.0.7 2 0 FIVETEN-MISCip4rblackholes.five-ten-sg.com 127.0.0.9 2 0 FIVETEN-FREEip4rblackholes.five-ten-sg.com 127.0.0.12 2 0 INTERSILip4rblackholes.intersil.net 127.0.0.2 5 0 IPWHOIS ip4ripwhois.rfc-ignorant.org127.0.0.6 3 0 LNSGSRC ip4rspamguard.leadmon.net 127.0.0.3 3 0 LNSGBULKip4rspamguard.leadmon.net 127.0.0.4 3 0 LNSGOR ip4rspamguard.leadmon.net 127.0.0.5 3 0 LNSGMULTI ip4rspamguard.leadmon.net 127.0.0.6 3 0 LNSGBLOCK ip4rspamguard.leadmon.net 127.0.0.7 3 0 MONKEYFORMMAIL ip4rformmail.relays.monkeys.com * 3 0 MONKEYPROXIES ip4rproxies.relays.monkeys.com * 3 0 NJABL ip4rdnsbl.njabl.org 127.0.0.2 10 0 NJABLDULip4rdnsbl.njabl.org 127.0.0.3 50 0 ORDBip4rrelays.ordb.org * 5 0 SBL ip4rsbl.spamhaus.org127.0.0.2 10 0 SORBS-HTTP ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.2 5 0 SORBS-SOCKS ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.3 5 0 SORBS-MISC ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.4 5 0 SORBS-SMTP ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.5 5 0 SORBS-SPAM ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.6 5 0 SORBS-WEB ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.7 5 0 SORBS-BLOCK ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.8 5 0 SORBS-ZOMBIEip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.9 10 0 SORBS-BADCONF ip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.11 3 0 SORBS-NOMAILip4rdnsbl.sorbs.net 127.0.0.12 3 0 SPAMBAG ip4rblacklist.spambag.org * 10 0 SPAMCOP ip4rbl.spamcop.net 127.0.0.2 10 0 UCEBip4rblackholes.uceb.org * 10 0 VOX ip4rvox.schpider.com127.0.0.2 3 0 WIREHUB-DNSBL ip4rblackholes.wirehub.net 127.0.0.2 5 0 YBL ip4rybl.megacity.org127.0.0.2 5 0 DSN rhsbl dsn.rfc-ignorant.org127.0.0.2 5 0 NOABUSE rhsbl abuse.rfc-ignorant.org 127.0.0.4 3 0 NOPOSTMASTERrhsbl postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org 127.0.0.3 3 0 SECURITYSAGErhsbl blackhole.securitysage.com * 5 0 MAILPOLICE-BULK rhsbl bulk.rhs.mailpolice.com 127.0.0.2 5 0 MAILPOLICE-PORN rhsbl porn.rhs.mailpolice.com 127.0.0.2 5 0 BADHEADERS badheaders x x 8 0 HELOBOGUS helovalid x x 5 0 HEUR10 heuristics 10
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
.8 is one of those F-U blacklists that punishes every user on a system because a network administrator saw fit to complain. I would think that most of these organizations are bandwidth providers with some sort of firewall that got tripped by the testing. Spammers don't rely on open relays in their own netblocks. I don't see any reason to use this test. .6 is an example of overzealousness and it is defeatist in nature. Less people will rely on such lists if in fact the list provider starts blocking millions of legitimate users. It ignores false positives and becomes more of a political statement in effect, and that doesn't help me much. My users don't care if SORBS is blocking Cox, they just want their E-mail from a friend or business associate. Unfortunately this goes both ways. Cox recently started blocking outgoing SMTP traffic over port 25 from at least some of their markets. They did this in order to combat the spam coming from their users. The net result is that they might find their way off of some blacklists, but E-mail providers are now limited in the solutions they can provide to their customers since users must use Cox's own SMTP server. I wouldn't call that a win. Unfortunately it seems that there are many overzealous lists out there, and my thinking is that this is due to what compels someone to start offering a blacklist for free...they're fed up and they're not going to take it anymore! Matt Eje Gustafsson wrote: If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide. .6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS. This zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting service providers, this could be for providing websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer. Spam supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are out' basis, where the third spam will cause the supporter to be blocked. .8 List of hosts demanding they are never tested by SORBS. So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO. Either way with declude there is not reason to directly block anything just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight. Best regards, Eje Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com Phone : 620-231- Fax : 620-231-4066 - Your Full Time Professionals - Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/ --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Would you post your configuration that works for you? and anyone else that's willing to do so? I'd like to see some examples of successful configurations to learn from. Thanks > Either way with declude there is not reason to directly block anything > just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Cox cable I'll bet. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Harvy > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 6:12 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > Who's Cox? > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Smart Business > > Lists > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2003 07:57 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > > > > Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one. > > > > > > Terry Fritts > > > > > > --- > > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the > Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
If someone demands they not get listed then they deserve to get blacklisted because OBVIOUSLY they have something to hide. .6 is List of hosts that have been noted as sending spam/UCE/UBE to the admins of SORBS. This zone also contains netblocks of spam supporting service providers, this could be for providing websites, DNS or drop boxes for a spammer. Spam supporters are added on a 'third strike and you are out' basis, where the third spam will cause the supporter to be blocked. .8 List of hosts demanding they are never tested by SORBS. So of course someone that host spammers will demand they never be tested. Almost should be a case for immediate blocking IMO. Either way with declude there is not reason to directly block anything just use a weighted system where each test add to the total weight. Best regards, Eje Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com Phone : 620-231- Fax : 620-231-4066 - Your Full Time Professionals - Mikrotik OEM dealer - Online Store http://www.fament.net/ -- PBH> Yes..do not block on 127.0.0.6 and .8 PBH> pbh >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> Smart Business Lists >> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 4:57 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM >> >> >> Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one. >> >> >> Terry Fritts >> >> >> --- >> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus >> (http://www.declude.com)] >> >> --- >> This E-mail came from the >> Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an >> E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe >> Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at >> http://www.mail-archive.com. >> --- >> [This E-mail scanned for >> viruses by Declude Virus] >> >> >> PBH> --- PBH> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] PBH> --- PBH> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] PBH> --- PBH> This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To PBH> unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and PBH> type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found PBH> at http://www.mail-archive.com. -- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
http://www.cox.com/ Bill - Original Message - From: "Glen Harvy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 3:12 PM Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > Who's Cox? > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Smart Business > > Lists > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2003 07:57 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > > > > Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one. > > > > > > Terry Fritts > > > > > > --- > > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Who's Cox? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Smart Business > Lists > Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2003 07:57 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one. > > > Terry Fritts > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM
Yes..do not block on 127.0.0.6 and .8 pbh > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Smart Business Lists > Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 4:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] SORBS-SPAM > > > Careful on SORBS-SPAM - blocking some large providers - Cox for one. > > > Terry Fritts > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the > Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an > E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe > Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- > [This E-mail scanned for > viruses by Declude Virus] > > > --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
