Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

2 participants
1870 discussions

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Lookup web page not showing blacklisted urls?
by SM 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

At 22:43 02-06-2009, Jeff Chan wrote: >This December 2007 paper "The Great DNS Wall of China" suggests that >Chinese ISPs are (being forced to) distort DNS results for domains >that contain certain strings: David Funk posted a message about a stale configuration causing bogus responses. On the surface, that may explain the behavior. However, it does not explain the malformed packets. We could theorize that the incorrect results are due to some corruption (broken nameserver, etc.). Based on other rough tests I conducted, I don't think so. Regards, -sm

5 10

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Lookup web page not showing blacklisted urls?
by SM 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

At 18:04 02-06-2009, SURBL Role wrote: >The 202.106 servers seem to be giving the right results now: These servers are still giving the wrong results. You may wish to test for flickr.com.multi.surbl.org too. Regards, -sm

2 2

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Lookup web page not showing blacklisted urls?
by SM 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

Hi Raymond, At 14:43 02-06-2009, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: >So able to reproduce this. But its depending what machine you are using, >what reply you get. On some if get random results, on others i get >nxdomain, on this exact same server. I can reproduce the above. I suggest dropping 202.106.182.243 too. Regards, -sm

3 2

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Lookup web page not showing blacklisted urls?
by SM 03 Jun '09

03 Jun '09

Hi Raymond, At 14:22 02-06-2009, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: >surbl.org nameservers, or multi.surbl.org nameservers? >Two different things. It's one of the multi.surbl.org nameservers. >For the first i dont see issues, for the second, its only rbldnsd servers >so wonder how this could be.... I sent Jeff an email. The behavior looks more like policy enforcement instead of a rbldnsd server issue. Regards, -sm

3 2

Lookup web page not showing blacklisted urls?
by Chip Campbell 02 Jun '09

02 Jun '09

There are sites which return with IP addresses to dns lookups, but which report as "not blacklisted" when I submit them to the lookup web page. For example, % dig +short twitter.com.multi.surbl.org 4.36.66.178 % dig +short test.surbl.org.multi.surbl.org 127.0.0.126 But when I enter twitter.com into http://george.surbl.org/lookup.html, it says "twitter.com is not blacklisted" in a green box. Same for test.surbl.org. What am I missing? Chip C Toronto

5 8

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Blacklisted for no good reason
by Chris Santerre 18 May '09

18 May '09

> The emails were sent from the band's domain, > mollysrevenge.com, using the commercial newsletter service, FanBridge. > I do not speak for SURBL. FanBridge was listed, not your band domain. You are prbly clean as a whistle. You just chose the wrong partner. > So how am I supposed to deal with this? You complain to Fanbridge, or to the people that blocked you. As said before, SURBL does not block spam anymore then the Better Business Bureau stops you from walking into a Jiffy Lube to get your oil changed. > Fanbridge is a legitimate > business That is not capable of using clean email lists. Proven time and time again. >with thousands of customers. The number of customers has no bearing on this. > I have no idea why you > chose to > blacklist them and I don;t really care, That's a great way to get the antispam community on your side. Tell us you don't care. > all I know is that > legitimate > emails are being intercepted as a result and that's an unacceptable > situation. Yes it is. Its very unacceptable. We don't like spam, and people made a list of people who send spam. Some of us use it. Its not mandatory. > If this happened with USPS mail, you'd be guilty of a > felony. The internet is not ruled by US law. > Catchall solutions to internet spam that result in legitimate emails > being blocked are unacceptable. You got that right! We all understand that. But SURBL is not a catchall. No one is made to use the list. And everyone is clearly told that blocking emails based on the list is prbly not a good idea! But those of us with clean inboxes do, and it works, and we thank SURBL. Good Luck, Chris Santerre

1 0

In response to May 8th "Help!!!' posting
by Peter Haworth 18 May '09

18 May '09

Hear, hear to this post! Emails to my band's legitimate, opted-in mailing list were recently blocked because the newsletter service we use is blacklisted on this site. I can't even mention the name of the service in this email because it then gets rejected by my ISP when I try to send it! This is a ridiculous situation and saying that you are not blocking anything is an unacceptable denial of responsibility. You are providing the means for email to be blocked and recommending ISPs use it so accept your responsibility. What I and anyone else sending out legitimate emails must have is a way for our emails to be delivered and NOT classified as spam. Cavalier approaches to blocking spam which cause havoc to legitimate emails are just not acceptable. > You missed my point. When I tried to send email to the whitelist > address given, it > was rejected. > > All I'm saying is that people should be given an opportunity to > clear their name. > Your system assumes that the blacklisted domain has been sending > advertising and > you want to judge whether it's spam or not. If we don't use the > domain for > advertising, we have no way of complying with your form > requirements. When we > tried to contact you using the alternate method, our email was > rejected by your > servers, because it is on your blacklist. > > I understand that you are not blocking anything, but recommending it > to people who > trust your list results in the same thing. We have to go to each > recipient and ask > that they stop using your list in order to get our mail through. It > would be > better for all concerned, to make it easier to correct the problem > at it's source. > > The present system clogs up the list with things that should be > handled in > private, and results in people having to drop your service in order > to receive > legitimate email. That means the spammers win. > > BTW, How would blacklisting a domain NOT hurt legitimate email from > that domain? > > > > Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> "We just do not handle delisting requests on the mailinglist. > Thats not > >> what is is here for." > >> > >> That is understood. What is not understood is why it is so hard > to get a delisting > >> request through proper channels, that many have to resort to this > list out of > >> desperation. If we don't have the magic formula to get the site > to accept our > >> request, and our mail is rejected, what are we supposed to do? > >> > >> You call us spammers and slam the door in our face. As bad as > spam is, I think it > >> is worse to interfere with legitimate email and provide no way to > report mistakes. > > > > With every list there will be people saying it will hurt their > legitimate > > mailflow. We do not block anything hoewever. Its every > mailproviders free > > choise to pick a list for filtering mail. > > > > If your delisting request wasnt handled like you expected drop a > not on > > whitelist at surbl.org and we will follow up with you there. > > > > Thanks, > > Raymond. > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss at lists.surbl.org > > http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > Pete Haworth http://www.mollysrevenge.com http://www.sonicbids.com/MollysRevenge http://www.myspace.com/mollysrevengeband

8 13

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Blacklisted for no good reason
by Steve Sobol 17 May '09

17 May '09

Fanbridge doesn't send me anything but spam, and you can google and find their CEO saying "well, just email me and I'll add you to our global suppression list." Well, if they managed their lists better... actually, if they forced their bands to manage the lists better... they wouldn't need to do damage control like that. Your list? I am not questioning that it's clean. If you say it's clean, I'll trust you. Fanbridge, however, was an unfortunate choice... I've tried unsubscribing from a band's email list, just to find that I'm on two others besides the one I just got off of. This has happened more than once. I've NEVER subscribed to ANY email list hosted at Fanbridge. Seriously - go find another ESP. And stop posturing, it only makes you look like a jerk. No one is required to accept mail from Fanbridge, whether you like it or not. Best, Steve - NOT SPEAKING FOR THE SURBL MAINTAINERS. Just speaking on my own behalf. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Haworth" <pete(a)mollysrevenge.com> To: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 9:15:05 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Blacklisted for no good reason On Saturday May 16th, we sent out a legitimate newsletter email to our mailing list consisting of people who opted -in and specifically requested to receive newsletters. Some of these emails were classified as spam because of references to either Fanbridge.com or fburls.com. The emails were sent from the band's domain, mollysrevenge.com, using the commercial newsletter service, FanBridge. So how am I supposed to deal with this? Fanbridge is a legitimate business with thousands of customers. I have no idea why you chose to blacklist them and I don;t really care, all I know is that legitimate emails are being intercepted as a result and that's an unacceptable situation. If this happened with USPS mail, you'd be guilty of a felony. Catchall solutions to internet spam that result in legitimate emails being blocked are unacceptable. Pete Haworth http://www.mollysrevenge.com http://www.sonicbids.com/MollysRevenge http://www.myspace.com/mollysrevengeband _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA, USA sjsobol(a)justthe.net

1 0

Blacklisted for no good reason
by Peter Haworth 17 May '09

17 May '09

On Saturday May 16th, we sent out a legitimate newsletter email to our mailing list consisting of people who opted -in and specifically requested to receive newsletters. Some of these emails were classified as spam because of references to either Fanbridge.com or fburls.com. The emails were sent from the band's domain, mollysrevenge.com, using the commercial newsletter service, FanBridge. So how am I supposed to deal with this? Fanbridge is a legitimate business with thousands of customers. I have no idea why you chose to blacklist them and I don;t really care, all I know is that legitimate emails are being intercepted as a result and that's an unacceptable situation. If this happened with USPS mail, you'd be guilty of a felony. Catchall solutions to internet spam that result in legitimate emails being blocked are unacceptable. Pete Haworth http://www.mollysrevenge.com http://www.sonicbids.com/MollysRevenge http://www.myspace.com/mollysrevengeband

2 1

Requesting Removal from List
by Steve Carrea 15 May '09

15 May '09

Good Evening, I am writing in hopes that someone can help me resolve this urgent issue. I am writing on behalf of NYC area rock band Almost One, whos URL is blocked by your website and I need it removed from the list immediately. There's no reason why it should be on it since the band only sends out solicited messages. I hope to hear from someone soon. I did try entering the URL in the lookup field and it returns a message that it is not blacklisted, yet this is the error we get when sending out emails: ---- Technical details of permanent failure: Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 552 552 5.2.0 Remote MTA 209.85.222.115: An URL contained in this message is blacklisted by SURBL. See http://www.surbl.org (state 18). ---- Thanks in advance for your help. _________________________ A NYC Indie Rock & Roll Band http://www.almostone.com

5 4

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
187
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss