m?
Please visit this and see: http://home.teleport.com/~amurph/web-o-trust.txt
Regards,
Kami
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 9:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-O-Trust o
This guy is out of his mind... Look at his comments:
# Note: These are, respectively, Earthlink, sccrmxc14.comcast.net,
rwcrmhc13.comcast.net,
ip: 207.217.120.0/24
Is this what I think it is.. He is listing the entire Earthlink.com?
This should be treated in the same way as if someone you trust (
s,
Kami
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 9:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-O-Trust or ?
>"Have you checked the filter file to see what IP range matched? "
"Have you checked the filter file to see what IP range matched? "
The IP entry is: 207.217.120.0/24
In the list of participants, the 5th entry in the list of participants.
-
http://www.web-o-trust.org/browse.cgi?url=http://web-o-trust.org/everybody.t
xt
& I found it here:
- http://home.telepor
"Have you checked the filter file to see what IP range matched? "
The IP entry is: 207.217.120.0/24
In the list of participants, the 5th entry in the list of participants.
-
http://www.web-o-trust.org/browse.cgi?url=http://web-o-trust.org/everybody.t
xt
& I found it here:
- http://home.telepo
Merry Christmas everyone.
Any way...the problem was eluded to before, in fact the listings that
caused this problem have always been there:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg13918.html
We shouldn't be trusting ISP mail servers. If isolated instances like
this aren't enough,
I just noticed a caught spam that shows the Web-O-Trust filter being
triggered. This is the filter that I think Bill posted after running the
program on the site.
Have you checked the filter file to see what IP range matched? The two
things to look for are [1] the site that listed the IP (if
Hello Kami.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kami Razvan
Sent: Thursday,
December 25, 2003 4:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-O-T
ink I will be running this test right away, at least not until they
can keep their name servers up and responding.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Landry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [De
ember 11, 2003 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
>
> >Andy, do they seem to be responding to your IP4R queries. The site
appears
> >to be down from my perspective.
>
>
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/lookup.ch?name=2.0.0.127.cabal.web-o-
Of Bill Landry
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 06:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
Andy, do they seem to be responding to your IP4R queries. The site appears
to be down from my perspective.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Schmidt&quo
Andy, do they seem to be responding to your IP4R queries. The site appears
to be down from my perspective.
http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/lookup.ch?name=2.0.0.127.cabal.web-o-trust.org&type=A
shows that it is working.
-Scott
---
Declude JunkMail
Andy, do they seem to be responding to your IP4R queries. The site appears
to be down from my perspective.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:11 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude
m: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Gufler
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 05:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
Hi Scott,
As an ISP we host several webspaces of our customers and have full control
of it.
It's possible (and c
> >How do the names get added to the list (or web-o-trust)?
>
> By getting someone to trust them.
>
> For example, we're asking that our customers let us know that
> they have set up a WOT file, and we add them to our WOT file,
> which a lot of people already trust.
Hi Scott,
As an ISP we ho
At 09:33 PM 12/10/2003, you wrote:
Hi Pete:
Very informative.
As much as I like and will support the concept, I couldn't help but cringe
that someone comes up with a new "web-based" system - and then defines their
proprietary formatting for their config file instead of trying to reuse
existing st
As much as I like and will support the concept, I couldn't help but cringe
that someone comes up with a new "web-based" system - and then defines their
proprietary formatting for their config file instead of trying to reuse
existing standards, e.g., adopting XML as a format.
In general, though, XM
Hm,
I have a vision that every domain would publish a "default" document of
/Web-O-Trust.txt
at their website (equivalent to the "Robots.txt" file that we all have).
Now, anti-spam software could receive email claiming to be from a domain,
retrieve the domains Web-O-Trust.txt via HTTP a
9206
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 09:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
At 06:27 PM 12/10/2003, you wrote:
>I'm with Todd he
I think ultimately it would be good to "rank" by trust, e.g., with hundreds
of thousands of entries, there will be some that MANY will trust, others
will never be trusted - any everything in-between.
If this could be translated into a "weighted" list - then it would
self-correct any "odd-balls" an
At 06:27 PM 12/10/2003, you wrote:
I'm with Todd here. I see very little value here. I don't have a problem
with blocking E-mail from
I'm not against the idea of having some form of a registry, however the
root of the problem is in differentiating among the gray stuff and not
among the non-a
Well let's try to have a discussion about sharing lists, if anyone is in
fact interested.
It takes a lot of effort to identify IP blocks for white, gray and black
lists. I've seen some people include whole class C's without seemingly
verifying that they were all under the control of one party.
> For example, we've created a file at http://www.declude.com/web-o-
> trust.txt
> that lists the IP of our mailserver. It lists the IP address of our
> mailserver. It also has a link to another WOT file, which links us in to
> many other WOT files.
#
# Some of our customers are listed below. N
erry
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 08:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
>I think the attempt is admirable, as it is with the RBL's and anyone
>else
>that contributes to the "greater good," however I strongly believe that
I think the attempt is admirable, as it is with the RBL's and anyone else
that contributes to the "greater good," however I strongly believe that
the approach is flawed. I've had similar discussions regarding shared
blacklists and the same issue comes up over and over again...there needs
to b
r 10, 2003 4:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
After reading the WOT site and the posts here. I think the best use for this
is a dynamic trusted whitelist. For example I have my mail server and my
gateway mail servers. My web servers that send out notices and our
ord
Scott,
I think the attempt is admirable, as it is with the RBL's and anyone
else that contributes to the "greater good," however I strongly believe
that the approach is flawed. I've had similar discussions regarding
shared blacklists and the same issue comes up over and over
again...there nee
ott Perry
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
>
>
>
> >What if a spammer get into the loop? and corrupts the shared
> whitelist? is
> >this possible?
>
> It can happen, but a spammer wo
As with all such networks, as this grows larger, the potential for
problems also grows. Spamcop for instance has suffered greatly from a
large number of anti-commercialism administrators or people that are just
plain irresponsible reporting their spam, and a system like this
represents a pote
So how can this be added to Declude for negative weight?
Using an IP blacklist, with a negative weight, such as:
WOT ipfile D:\IMail\Declude\wotfile.txt x -10 x
You'll need to create wotfile.txt, using collate from
http://www.web-o-trust.org , which uses Python, or the tool we are developi
That is way too broad and general a statement.
My server doesn't NOT allow most spam to pass.
I would think most mail admins that would take advantage
> of WOT would already have their servers setup so they would pass most spam
> tests anyways. Why whitelist senders that wouldn't have failed y
What if a spammer get into the loop? and corrupts the shared whitelist? is
this possible?
It can happen, but a spammer would have to do a lot of work for little
payout. They would have to get someone to trust them to get "in the loop",
while not knowing how many people will trust them -- and no
You wrote of a process to compile a whitelist (implemented as negative
weight on a blacklist). Does this process "walk" to all of the includes
and their include, etc. to create the whitelist file?
Yes. It's designed to follow the "rules" of Web-o-Trust, and include/omit
IPs as determined by you
> If someone can show me the value of crediting points to hosts which
> account for almost none of my mail volume, over which I have no
> familiarity with their rules and procedures, and for which I am not aware
> of any substantial problems, I will definitely reconsider my stance.
Very well state
"If someone can show me the value of crediting points to hosts which account
for almost none of my mail volume, over which I have no familiarity with
their rules and procedures, and for which I am not aware of any substantial
problems, I will definitely reconsider my stance."
Matt:
I think this c
Well,
Your try it
if it doesn't work, or gets abused, you get rid of it..
It just *might* help.
- Original Message -
From: "Matthew Bramble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMai
I'm with Todd here. I see very little value here. I don't have a
problem with blocking E-mail from providers that aren't involved in bulk
mailing or don't have large communities of unregulated users. This
might help with some false positives related to administrator
discussions of banned wor
whitelisted items and linked WOT files
Kevin Bilbee
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of andyb
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
>
>
>
.xidix.com
702.319.4349
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
>
>
> &g
ent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 02:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
>Scott, I looked into this several months ago, but at the time it did
>not seem to be getting much interest, and still doesn't appear to have
>much of a following (maybe 100 parti
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 05:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
Pardon my jumping in this discussion late:
How do the names get added to the list (or web-o-trust)?
It appears that co
How do the names get added to the list (or web-o-trust)?
By getting someone to trust them.
For example, we're asking that our customers let us know that they have set
up a WOT file, and we add them to our WOT file, which a lot of people
already trust.
It appears that companies say, "I'm not a
ednesday, December 10, 2003 2:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
>
> I think WOT could be very worth while for the 10-15 minutes it takes
to
> setup.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROT
Do you get titles, such as flight-attendant, engineer, pilot etc?
(Adding a fringe benefit like this usually improves participation.)
---
[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,
I think WOT could be very worth while for the 10-15 minutes it takes to
setup.
- Original Message -
From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
>
>
Scott, I looked into this several months ago, but at the time it did not
seem to be getting much interest, and still doesn't appear to have much of a
following (maybe 100 participants so far on their list). However, I am
willing to give it a go. Question, how do we use this with Declude JunkMail
Scott, I looked into this several months ago, but at the time it did not
seem to be getting much interest, and still doesn't appear to have much of a
following (maybe 100 participants so far on their list).
That's correct. But about half of them joined within the past few
days. When I first hea
kMail
in its current form?
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust
>
> >So, my req
So, my request is that people go to http://www.web-o-trust.org and set up
your own WOT file, and then let me know the URL of your WOT file
(preferably off-list, to reduce traffic to this list). I'll add you to
our WOT file, which is being used by many/most other people using
Web-o-Trust, so y
49 matches
Mail list logo
