Good day, all,
I'm running into a problem with the sa-blacklist content I host at
http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/ . The box (*) is hosted at pa.net, a
colo facility once employing a good friend. A new guy was going over the
bandwidth stats and noticed that that machine hogs the available bandwidth
on its ethernet segment for a few minutes after each hour as people
download the sa-blacklist.
I asked him what kind of bandwidth he'd ideally like that system
to use, and how much I'm using at the moment. I should be using around
10G/month. I'm currently using 1TB/month. Oops.
I'm not in imminent danger of being kicked off their cable, but
both they and I agree that I need to do something differently. I could
put another physical box at another ISP with unlimited bandwidth, but I'm
already paying around $1500/year to host the site, and am reluctant to
double that. Because that box hosts 27 virtual machines, moving it is a
project that would need a few months of lead time to arrange, and would be
a nightmare in itself.
It would be great if someone already has enough bandwidth to host
the content on a different cable, but I think people with a terabyte/month
to spare may be rare. *smile* If you've got some bandwidth you could
share, would you consider doing round-robin with me with the content? 10
sites spreading the load would have 100GB/month, or an average of about
300 kilobits/sec. 20 sites sould be half that each, and so on.
I'd need to upload content via rsync over ssh. The actual content
is published via web, rsync, and ftp, although I could easily set up
www.sa-blacklist.stearns.org for the sites willing to share over http,
rsync.sa-blacklist.stearns.org, for the sites willing to share over rsync,
and ftp.sa-blacklist.stearns.org.
If you can spare some bandwidth, please respond. Let me know what
you can spare in average kilobits/sec. That way, if only 10 people
respond and one of them can provide 100 kilobits/sec, I'll know not to
include that person in the mirror until I can get 30 people.
If you can take part, I'd be forever grateful. *sincere smile*
Cheers,
- Bill
* http://www.stearns.org/slartibartfast/uml-coop.current.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Referring to the 32 bit system that feeds out files for
kernel.org) "We learned that the Linux load average rolls over at 1024.
And we actually found this out empirically."
-- Peter Anvin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Stearns (wstearns(a)pobox.com). Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f,
rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at: http://www.stearns.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
when experimenting with rhsbl.ahbl.org sender blacklists on MTA level, I
noticed:
reject_warning: RCPT from mta121.cheetahmail.com[66.165.100.122]: 571 Service
unavailable; Sender address
[bo-byytbuda6faq70bcxwgsmb73r6zqxc(a)b.apc.chtah.com] blocked using
rhsbl.ahbl.org; Domain used in spam. Access is not allowed.;
To me, the email seemed to be a valid product hotfix notification from
http://www.apc.com to registered recipients.
What are your experiences with or views about cheetah.com? They appear to be
mass mailers, but also engaged in anti-spam measures / sender verification
acitivities, and what are your experiences with rhsbl.ahbl.org?
I would like to make up my mind
- whether to whitelist cheetah.com mailservers from being blocked on MTA level
in order to avoid FPs when using ahbl
- whether to use rhsbl.ahbl.org to reject mails at the MTA level.
Cheers,
wolfgang
Just passing along some interesting news:
Opera is celebrating 10 years with a free registration code. It's very
simply and very much on the up and up. Go to
http://my.opera.com/community/party/reg.dml
" SURPRISE!!! Free registration codes - Party favors: Get a free Opera
registration code by clicking the "go free" button below. We're giving away
registration codes for as long as the party lasts!"
Regards,
KAM
Got a spam mentioning photo.com and some chat site. The chat
site may be spammy but does anyone know anything about photo.com?
Seems to be several years old:
Registrant:
Calumet Photographic Inc.
890 Supreme Dr.
Bensenville, IL 60106
US
Domain Name: PHOTO.COM
Administrative Contact:
Perazella, Tom tom.perazella(a)CALUMETPHOTO.COM
Calumet Photographic, Inc.
890 Supreme Dr.
Bensenville, IL 60106
US
(630) 860-7447 fax: 999 999 9999
Technical Contact:
Fischer, Douglas doug.fischer(a)calumetphoto.com
890 Supreme Drive
Bensenville, IL 60106
US
630-860-7447 X3204 fax: 123 123 1234
Record expires on 06-Apr-2006.
Record created on 07-Apr-1998.
Database last updated on 28-Aug-2005 04:09:30 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.PRIMARYDEVELOPMENT.NET 38.119.37.68
NS3.PRIMARYDEVELOPMENT.NET 38.119.37.120
NS2.PRIMARYDEVELOPMENT.NET 38.119.37.69
Jeff C.
--
Don't harm innocent bystanders.
> The address I had for reporting spam to mailpolice was:
>
> > spam(a)mailpolice.com
>
> But it may no longer work.
Yes, the address still works. Please do send any kind of spam to that
address.
--
Jay Swackhamer <jswack(a)nebularis.com>
Nebularis Inc <http://www.nebularis.com>
MailPolice Spam&Virus Elimination <http://www.mailpolice.com>
Tel: 1-613-843-9358 Fax: 1-613-825-5960
It was brought to the attention of some SURBL contributors recently a
reminder that we have to be careful not to list porn messages just because
they are porn if little or no evidence of actual spamming is found. This is
because SURBL is suppose to be a "spammer's URI" list, not an objectionable
content list. There has always been a general agreement on this.
But this issue has reminded me to remind everyone to please, where
applicable, send any porn domains which did NOT quite make the SURBL "spam
threshold" over to MailPolice.com's "porn.rhs.mailpolice.com" list...
especially the newer ones which might not already be there.
In fact, for the past 14 months, I've been slowly and diligently working on
my own commercial spam filtering solution with which I hope to carve out a
nitch area where I will especially appeal to families who are concerned
about content as well as spam. Therefore, for my **own** filtering, porn is
filtered out regardless of spamming issues and, therefore, MailPolice's porn
list is a great addition to my filter. Other filters may choose to have a
"family option" or "strict option" which would be ideal for "grownups" who
struggle with porn addiction and/or great for families who want an extra
layer of protection for their own children's e-mail accounts. This can catch
porn outfits who spam "just below the radar" or it can catch them if/when
they just start spamming. Of course, this is no substitute for linguistic
filtering, for which I have one of the best porn filters ever. Of course,
the real trick is to catch these without catching the dirty jokes that
people send around to each other. (and I've gotten pretty good at blocking
the former without blocking the latter in my linguistic filtering!)
Of course, this kind of filtering is not for everyone or every mail
server!!! But I just want to make sure that you all know about MailPolice
being a good place to send this stuff to when not deemed SURBL-material.
BTW - When I start selling my spam filtering service, it will be available
here:
http://Stop-Spam-Forever-Filter-Blocker.com
(or, alternatively)
http://StopSpamForever.com
But my web site for promoting my filter is not yet built :(
Finally, funny thing is... I don't know for sure **how** best to report porn
domains to MailPolice. Jay Swackhamer <jswack at nebularis.com> is the
contact there who provided the MailPolice-to-SURBL phishing data feed. Try
him or perhaps Jeff or someone else has a suggestion or additional contact
there?
Rob McEwen
PowerView Systems
Rob(a)PowerViewSystems.com
Hi,
I'm sorry but trabant.login-solutions.de (212.172.180.57), one of the
mirror servers for the surbl.org zones, is down, probably due to
hardware probs.
Please, can someone disable that machine in the DNS setup.
Thanks
Dirk
Hi
Has anyone managed to plot RBLDNS stats using MRTG?
I've googled, but I haven't found anything
TIA
Michele
2
2
Geocities
by Darrell (support@invariantsystems.com)
13 Aug '05
13 Aug '05
I want to check on this before I add geocities as an exception (i.e. do not
check against SURBL) - Is geocities one of the domains that would never end
up on SURBL. I was doing an analysis this week against domains that always
returned clean and number of times - and geocities was listed as #1.
Darrell
Hi,
sorry for crossposting, but I think this concerns both SURBL and URIBL.
Given: A (phishing-)mail containg a link to the IP 219.144.194.158
The lookup page on rulesemporium.com says it's listed on ws and ph in SURBL
However, I find that the current SpamAssassin (3.0.4) does not appear to
lookup IP-based URLs. Is that correct?
Secondly, which form would be correct to lookup that IP via dig (or
whatever), and how should SA handle it if it tried to lookup IP-based URIs?
dig 219.144.194.158.multi.surbl.org gives no results back, but the
reversed dotted decimal form does:
dig 158.194.144.219.multi.surbl.org returns 127.0.0.12.
Lastly: The URIBL-Lookup page says that the IP 219.144.194.158 is
neither listed on SURBL nor URIBL but claims that 158.194.144.219 is
listed both in SURBL (ws and ph) and URIBL (black). I take that to be
simply wrong.
Dirk