Re: KnujOn - Registrars
From: Karsten Bräckelmann guent...@rudersport.de
Sent: Monday, 2009, February 16 15:22
Here is a list of last years, and this years spam by registrar (joker
was given a L.A.R.T. by ICANN it looks like and isn't on the second list)
http://www.knujon.com/registrars/
The 10 Worst Registrars in terms of spam advertised junk product sites
and compliance failure
*snip* That's previous years' list, May 2008.
The recent list as of Feb 2009 is the first one. (Just in case someone
else understands your post like I did, and has a look at the wrong list
quoted.)
From their site:
In May of 2008 KnujOn released a controversial report highlighting
Registrars that have a concentration spam, abuse and illicit activity.
The report, and follow activity, had a profound and lasting effect on
the Registrar world and Internet abuse. We are refreshing this report
with data collected after June, 2008 to examine changes. One thing
that has not changed is the fact that most abuse is concentrated at a
minority of providers.
The 83% is a current number with data collected AFTER June 2008.
{^_^}
Re: KnujOn - Registrars
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 00:02 -0800, jdow wrote:
http://www.knujon.com/registrars/
The 10 Worst Registrars in terms of spam advertised junk product sites
and compliance failure
*snip* That's previous years' list, May 2008.
The recent list as of Feb 2009 is the first one. (Just in case someone
else understands your post like I did, and has a look at the wrong list
quoted.)
The 83% is a current number with data collected AFTER June 2008.
True. So what? The list Michael posted (which I snipped) shows the old
data collected BEFORE June 2008.
The link referenced does have the recent stats. The OP does not.
--
char *t=\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4;
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;il;i++){ i%8? c=1:
(c=*++x); c128 (s+=h); if (!(h=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: KnujOn - Registrars
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 17:44 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: The recent list as of Feb 2009 is the first one. (Just in case someone else understands your post like I did, and has a look at the wrong list quoted.) The 83% is a current number with data collected AFTER June 2008. True. So what? The list Michael posted (which I snipped) shows the old data collected BEFORE June 2008. The link referenced does have the recent stats. The OP does not. I have very mixed reaction to having name registrars enforce anti-spamming regs and laws. This is kind of like sanctioning a gun shop because someone bought a gun there and used it in a robbery. GoDaddy caught a _lot_ of flack recently for shutting down domain names based on website content, and rightly so, IMHO. This is a very slippery slope. Sanction the operators of the designated name servers, maybe, or the systems which host the accounts which do the spam distribution, but coming down on registrars seems rather big-brotherish. Once a name is registered, it's on the root name servers and all the registrar does is maintain it in their whois database, although they do have the authority to disable a name for which they're the registrar of record. I'm as offended by spam to me and my customers as anyone, but I'm also a big proponent of open source and net neutrality, and like to see pressure applied where the actual functional responsibility for a mis-deed lies. -- Lindsay Haisley | Everything works|Accredited FMP Computer Services | if you let it | by the 512-259-1190 |(The Roadie) | Austin Better http://www.fmp.com| | Business Bureau
spamassassin versions
Hallo, I have installed spamassassin 3.2.5 on my linux server but when I check the version I get those messages: h1306680:/usr/bin # spamd --version SpamAssassin Server version 3.1.8 running on Perl 5.8.8 with SSL support (IO::Socket::SSL 0.97) h1306680:/usr/bin # spamc --version SpamAssassin Client version 3.2.5 h1306680:/usr/bin # spamassassin --version SpamAssassin version 3.2.5 running on Perl version 5.8.8 Did something go wrong with the installation or has the spamd part not been updated in the recent versions? Thanks for any hints. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/spamassassin-versions-tp22062607p22062607.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: spamassassin versions
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 09:48 -0800, an anonymous Nabble user wrote:
Hallo, I have installed spamassassin 3.2.5 on my linux server but when I
check the version I get those messages:
h1306680:/usr/bin # spamd --version
SpamAssassin Server version 3.1.8
running on Perl 5.8.8
with SSL support (IO::Socket::SSL 0.97)
h1306680:/usr/bin # spamc --version
SpamAssassin Client version 3.2.5
h1306680:/usr/bin # spamassassin --version
SpamAssassin version 3.2.5
running on Perl version 5.8.8
Did something go wrong with the installation or has the spamd part not been
updated in the recent versions?
How did you install SA, both the previous and the latest version?
With a source or CPAN install, it is likely you didn't uninstall the
previous version properly, leaving behind some stale files. Also,
different prefixes used might be the culprit here.
With a package install (RPM or DEB) my guess is, that your distro /
packager split SA in multiple packages, and you just forgot to update
the spamd package.
guenther
--
char *t=\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4;
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;il;i++){ i%8? c=1:
(c=*++x); c128 (s+=h); if (!(h=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Installing under windows
You might try running ppm insteractively. Perhaps Win32-Registry-File is already installed, or ppm is unable to load the package database from ActiveState? I know both those packages exist because I have them installed on ActivePerl 5.8.8.820. Bret On 2/15/2009 5:42 AM, Jim wrote: I'm trying to install Spam Assassin on Windows Server 2003 Active Perl 5.8.8.820 is installed. In section 1 of the instructions http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/InstallingOnWindows The following commands fail: ppm install Win32-Registry-File ppm install failed: Can't find any package that provide Win32-Registry-File ppm install DB_File ppm install failed: Can't find any package that provide DB_File Anyone any ideas what's wrong? Jim
Error ''connect to spamd on 127.0.0.1 failed, retrying (# 1 of 3): Connection timed out ''
Hi I am new in the list and I'm having a problem, if I am wrong by posting notice. Next, I have a full qmailtoaster (qmail, Vpopmail, simscan, clamav, spamassassin, etc.) and this occurs the following error in maillog connect to spamd on 127.0.0.1 failed, retrying (# 1 of 3): Connection timed out connect to spamd on 127.0.0.1 failed, retrying (# 1 of 3): Connection timed out connect to spamd on 127.0.0.1 failed, retrying (# 1 of 3): Connection timed out And so just locking the requisition smtp and the spamd is in the stalk. Someone went through this problem? Thanks - Kalz --
Please Subscribe (was: Re: Error ''connect to spamd on 127.0.0.1 failed, retrying (# 1 of 3): Connection timed out '')
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 20:16 -0300, Kalil Costa wrote:
I am new in the list and [...]
No, you are not (yet). :) Your post has been delayed and held for
moderation, as can be seen from the headers.
Delivered-To: moderator for users@spamassassin.apache.org
To avoid unnecessary work for the moderators and the delay it causes,
please do subscribe to a mailing list *before* posting.
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MailingLists
--
char *t=\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4;
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;il;i++){ i%8? c=1:
(c=*++x); c128 (s+=h); if (!(h=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: Error ''connect to spamd on 127.0.0.1 failed, retrying (# 1 of 3): Connection timed out ''
At 15:16 16-02-2009, Kalil Costa - Brasilsite wrote: Next, I have a full qmailtoaster (qmail, Vpopmail, simscan, clamav, spamassassin, etc.) and this occurs the following error in maillog connect to spamd on 127.0.0.1 failed, retrying (# 1 of 3): Connection timed out Based on the error message, spamd is not listening on localhost. Regards, -sm
Re: KnujOn - Registrars
From: Lindsay Haisley fmo...@fmp.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2009, February 17 09:47
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 17:44 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The recent list as of Feb 2009 is the first one. (Just in case
someone
else understands your post like I did, and has a look at the wrong
list
quoted.)
The 83% is a current number with data collected AFTER June 2008.
True. So what? The list Michael posted (which I snipped) shows the old
data collected BEFORE June 2008.
The link referenced does have the recent stats. The OP does not.
I have very mixed reaction to having name registrars enforce
anti-spamming regs and laws. This is kind of like sanctioning a gun
shop because someone bought a gun there and used it in a robbery.
GoDaddy caught a _lot_ of flack recently for shutting down domain names
based on website content, and rightly so, IMHO. This is a very slippery
slope. Sanction the operators of the designated name servers, maybe, or
the systems which host the accounts which do the spam distribution, but
coming down on registrars seems rather big-brotherish. Once a name is
registered, it's on the root name servers and all the registrar does is
maintain it in their whois database, although they do have the authority
to disable a name for which they're the registrar of record.
I'm as offended by spam to me and my customers as anyone, but I'm also a
big proponent of open source and net neutrality, and like to see
pressure applied where the actual functional responsibility for a
mis-deed lies.
Lindsay, with due respect I think your opinion above is incomplete.
It's correct as far as it goes.
But once a fertilizer dealer learns that a customer is making bombs
and setting them off in shopping malls I'd expect the dealer to cease
selling to that customer or be indicted as a co-conspirator.
I would expect the same behavior on the part of YouTube for illegal
videos, Slashdot for illegal content (egregious copyright violation),
and registrars for aiding identified spammers.
I would expect all those who need to be in the supply path for a
misdeed to work to remove themselves from that supply path upon proper
notification. I would NOT expect them to be proactive in this regard.
Reactive is fine and proper.
{^_^} Joanne
Re: KnujOn - Registrars
Well, perhaps so Joanne. Registrars are bound by the rules laid out by
ICANN, and ICANN requires legitimate contact information in the whois
database, along with other procedures. The problem with ICANN is that
it's pretty well fubar these days and does horrible stuff. I wouldn't
be surprised if they'd take money from spammers. I know they're in bed
with the major players in the domain name business at the expense of the
little folken.
I'm alarmed at some of the stuff GoDaddy did, completely on their own
without orders from ICANN. See http://www.nodaddy.com. I don't want
the domain name registration system turned into a nanny-state tool. The
proper forum through which to lodge complaints against registrars is the
ICANN, and ICANN needs to be held accountable for a _lot_ of strange
stuff. It's a zoo out there!
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 20:25 -0800, jdow wrote:
From: Lindsay Haisley fmo...@fmp.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2009, February 17 09:47
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 17:44 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
The recent list as of Feb 2009 is the first one. (Just in case
someone
else understands your post like I did, and has a look at the wrong
list
quoted.)
The 83% is a current number with data collected AFTER June 2008.
True. So what? The list Michael posted (which I snipped) shows the old
data collected BEFORE June 2008.
The link referenced does have the recent stats. The OP does not.
I have very mixed reaction to having name registrars enforce
anti-spamming regs and laws. This is kind of like sanctioning a gun
shop because someone bought a gun there and used it in a robbery.
GoDaddy caught a _lot_ of flack recently for shutting down domain names
based on website content, and rightly so, IMHO. This is a very slippery
slope. Sanction the operators of the designated name servers, maybe, or
the systems which host the accounts which do the spam distribution, but
coming down on registrars seems rather big-brotherish. Once a name is
registered, it's on the root name servers and all the registrar does is
maintain it in their whois database, although they do have the authority
to disable a name for which they're the registrar of record.
I'm as offended by spam to me and my customers as anyone, but I'm also a
big proponent of open source and net neutrality, and like to see
pressure applied where the actual functional responsibility for a
mis-deed lies.
Lindsay, with due respect I think your opinion above is incomplete.
It's correct as far as it goes.
But once a fertilizer dealer learns that a customer is making bombs
and setting them off in shopping malls I'd expect the dealer to cease
selling to that customer or be indicted as a co-conspirator.
I would expect the same behavior on the part of YouTube for illegal
videos, Slashdot for illegal content (egregious copyright violation),
and registrars for aiding identified spammers.
I would expect all those who need to be in the supply path for a
misdeed to work to remove themselves from that supply path upon proper
notification. I would NOT expect them to be proactive in this regard.
Reactive is fine and proper.
{^_^} Joanne
--
Lindsay Haisley | Everything works|Accredited
FMP Computer Services | if you let it | by the
512-259-1190 |(The Roadie) | Austin Better
http://www.fmp.com| | Business Bureau
