Discuss August 2004

discuss@lists.surbl.org

56 participants
207 discussions

Lists anounced on SA-dev and users
by Jeff Chan 31 Oct '04

31 Oct '04

FWIW I've announced these lists on spamassassin-dev and spamassassin-users. Hopefully we will get some additional interested folks to join in. Jeff C. __ Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

2 1

ns15.surbl.org is down
by Jeff Chan 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

Bjorn Jensen let me know that ns15 is down with a hardware failure and probably won't be back up until Monday. I have temporarily substituted ns16's IP address for it and commented it out of the "k" name server round robin. DNS should be operating normally as a result. Jeff C.

1 1

Re: [SURBL-Zones] Lowering TTLs
by Jeff Chan 11 Sep '04

11 Sep '04

On Friday, August 20, 2004, 9:24:10 AM, Mike Atkinson wrote: > On 8/19/2004 at 4:20 PM, Jeff Chan wrote: >> Does anyone mind if we try this out and see what effect it has >> on traffic? > Go for it! OK I'm changing the TTLs on all tue SURBL lists to 25 minutes which is a midway point between the 20 minutes I was going to try for SC and the 30 minutes we proposed for the rest of the lists. 25 minutes is also a good sampling frequency to capture data that has a 1 hour characteristic frequency. This is mainly an experiment to see what effect it has on DNS traffic. If the traffic on SC is not a lot lower, I'll change it back to 10 minutes. If the traffic on the other lists is not a lot higher, I'll leave it at 25 minutes. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

2 5

RFC: Public false positve reporting form
by Jeff Chan 04 Sep '04

04 Sep '04

How does anyone feel about a public false positive reporting form? Such a form would include the reporting party, the domain(s) or IPs, reasons why it's a false positive, etc. It could be processed publically or privately in a bug tracking system. It would be hand checked by some of our experienced spam fighters. The results could be published or simply aggregated without public announcement into the overall whitelist. Is this a good or bad idea? What level of publication should there be? What forms of proof (if any) does anyone like? Other comments? Jeff C.

4 4

[SURBL-Discuss] IN the interest in a bigger SA score and fewer FPs.....
by Chris Santerre 31 Aug '04

31 Aug '04

I have removed a rather large group of domains from WS. Time and time again FPs came from this rather large set of data from July. Since we have improved our contributor methods and numbers, I decided to yank them. If they continue to spam, they would just be readded by us anyway. So you might see a slight decrease in file size. And a few more slipping thru we will have to add again. But this will reduce overall FPs. --Chris (Did you know you can get dominoes to deliver to a parking lot at 1 AM!)

3 2

FP
by Chris Santerre 31 Aug '04

31 Aug '04

This was on the bottom of a legit email to a co worker. _______________________________________________ AsianAvenue.com free e-mail - www.asianavenue.com. Click into Asian America. Check out our Special Introductory Offer - E-mail Forwarding for just $5.95 per year! Powered by Outblaze Whitelist asianavenue.com or is it a spam site. Going to it looks fishy. But it is from outblaze, which is VERY antispam I think. --Chris

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Public false positve reporting form
by Chris Santerre 31 Aug '04

31 Aug '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 7:33 AM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: Public false positve reporting form > > >How does anyone feel about a public false positive reporting >form? Such a form would include the reporting party, the >domain(s) or IPs, reasons why it's a false positive, etc. > I think the public needs a way to report FP, to be listed, and greylist domains. However, only if more then one person can work on these. ;) >It could be processed publically or privately in a bug >tracking system. It would be hand checked by some of our >experienced spam fighters. The results could be published >or simply aggregated without public announcement into the >overall whitelist. > >Is this a good or bad idea? good >What level of publication should there be? Answers to none. They give, we take info. Too time consuming to answer all. > >What forms of proof (if any) does anyone like? spam with headers. The rest is up to us. > >Other comments? Who was the first nut ever to think up pole vaulting? "Hey Jim, see that there bush? I bet if I run fast enough with this here flagpole......." --Chris

2 1

FP on WS
by Bill Landry 31 Aug '04

31 Aug '04

Okay, here we go again... ;-) ===== Domain, proflowers.MUNGEDcom is listed on WS. ===== ===== Sending IP listed on two aggressive RBLs, otherwise looks clean: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ip4r.ch?ip=198.31.62.30 ===== ===== Domain, proflowers.com, registered through Network Solutions and domain registered in early 1998: Record created on 04-Feb-1998 ===== ===== Address space owned by Level 3: [whois.arin.net] Level 3 Communications, Inc. LVLT-ORG-198-31 (NET-198-31-0-0-1) 198.31.0.0 - 198.31.255.255 Subnet delegated to: Double Click DOUBLECLICK7-62-28 (NET-198-31-62-0-1) 198.31.62.0 - 198.31.63.255 RegDate: 2003-03-28 ===== ===== No NANAS listings: References: [ Proflowers: 0 ] ===== Anything else needed for this one? :-\ Bill

5 7

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] FP on WS
by Rob McEwen 30 Aug '04

30 Aug '04

> Domain, proflowers.MUNGEDcom is listed on WS. Thanks Bill for your good work. I hope this gets removed fast. I've heard Jeff ask in the past, "hey, what caused this to get on in the first place?" ...well, even though I often lean towards the aggressive side of the arguments, it seems like FPs like this one really are getting on SURBL too often. Therefore, I hope that Jeff or someone can find and correct the source of these particularly egregious types of FPs soon. Rob McEwen

1 0

FP on OB list
by Bill Landry 30 Aug '04

30 Aug '04

Found the link below in a Ziff Davis "Baseline Magazine" renewal notification e-mail, and it was tagged by OB: omessage.MUNGEcom The URI was used in an unsubscribe link. Bill

5 13

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss August 2004