Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1862 discussions

Start a nNew thread

FP on WS & DS
by Bill Landry 27 Sep '04

27 Sep '04

vault. com is listed on WS & DS. Bill

3 8

Spammer threatening to sue single4you.net
by Joe Wein 27 Sep '04

27 Sep '04

Here's some mail exchange with a spammer who's threating me with a lawsuit. On August 25 I received spam advertising single4you.net in the feed from Prolocation. There were several NANAS postings for it and I blacklisted it. On September 1, the domain owner tried to contact me, but got stuck in my mailfilter, as his sending domain was listed. ==== From: "Webmaster" <mail(a)single4you.net> To: <joewein(a)pobox.com> Sent: Wednesday, 01 September, 2004 9:58 Subject: Spammer??? Why are you blacklisting me? Who put you in charge? If you want to run a spam blacklist, make sure to pick the ones who are spammer’s not small businesses who are trying to make a living. But I guess you don’t’ care and feel good about yourself driving hard working folks like me into the ground. Christian Schiffer Webmaster Singles4you.net ==== Since then I added instructions to my site to help people wanting to contact me to get through the filter and he tried again: ==== From: "Christian Schiffer" <memberservice(a)single4you.net> To: <joewein(a)pobox.com> Sent: Sunday, 26 September, 2004 20:19 Subject: [BLACKLIST] www.single4you.net Notice of legal action Dear Sir, We purchased an opt inn mailing list witch we later found to be no so opt inn as we thought. As soon as we became aware of this we stopped using it. This was a one time mistake from our side and we decided to stop using bulk mail altogether to prevent further mistakes. Instead we purchase other services witch do not include e-mail advertising at all. Therefore we demand to be taken of your list within 24 hours as well as getting written confirmation that you have done this. We did send you an e-mail to witch you neglected to reply in a nice tone of voice several weeks ago. Because of your false accusations more then 50% of our customers witch all have explicitly asked to get e-mail from us are not getting their member mail, notice of e-mails from other members who wish to contact them and so forth. This is totally unacceptable and you are forcing us to sue you for a substantial amount should you not stop blacklisting our domain. We are sure that you wish to stop spamming problems and we find such an effort admirable as every legitimate business on the internet is suffering from spam; however, we are not spammers. We would prefer to solve this matter peacefully, and if you have further questions or concerns please don’t hesitate to bring them to our attention, but be also assured that we will have no other option that to go to severe legal actions against you should you choose to neglect this e-mail and continue your blacklisting of our company. In the future we would advice you to contact businesses you are suspecting to be spammers before making false accusations. Any business witch is falsely accused of spam will have a working return mail address on the mail the send out. And so do we, we had a working return address on our mails before and we have it now, solely because we are not spammers. We are looking forward to hear from you today. Sincerely yours Christian Schiffer webmaster(a)single4you.net www.single4you.net ==== Here's my reply: ==== > Dear Sir, Mr Schiffer, let's get a few things straight: > We purchased an opt inn mailing list witch we later found > to be no so opt inn as we thought. In other words, you are admitting that you sent spam advertising your website. Yet you demand your domain to be removed from a list of domains advertised via spam. As someone who runs a business, you should be familiar with the legal situation of sending bulk email. Since January 1, 20004, sending bulk email to recipients without a valid postal mail address for unsubscribing is a violation of US Federal Law ("Can Spam Act of 2003"), signed into law by President Bush last December. You emails included no such address. Furthermore, sending email to recipients in the European Union with whom one neither has an ongoing business relationship nor who have granted permission to send them email is a violation of EU law. Spam is not about how often you email someone, it is about (lack of) consent. As the anti-spam community has explained for a long time, the only way to avoid spamming people when sending bulk email is to only use confirmed opt-in lists that you yourself have built. Any other approach risks sending bulk email to persons who have not given their consent. > As soon as we became aware of this we stopped using it. > This was a one time mistake from our side and we decided > to stop using bulk mail altogether to prevent further mistakes. Well, that's obviously better than continuing to break the law, but it does not undo the violations that have already happened. You are standing on very shaky ground. > Therefore we demand to be taken of your list within 24 hours > as well as getting written confirmation that you have done this. On what legal grounds? I stated on my website that your domain has been advertised in spam. That is obviously true. In your latest email you yourself admit to that fact. I have copies of at least one unsolicited bulk email for every domain on my blacklist, including yours. The one that advertised your domain was received on August 25, 2004. Furthermore, there is evidence by other people that we came across when we researched your domain, which confirmed our conclusions. For example, take a look at these usenet postings: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=single4you.net > We did send you an e-mail to witch you neglected to > reply in a nice tone of voice several weeks ago. That email didn't make it through our spamfilter, because it originated from a blacklisted domain. To avoid communication problems like that I later addded the advice about [BLACKLIST] in the subject line. That's how we could finally communicate. > Because of your false accusations more then 50% > of our customers witch all have explicitly asked to > get e-mail from us are not getting their member mail, I am not blocking email to your customers. I don't control the mail servers they are using. The only mail I control is the for my own email accounts. When I publish which domains I refuse mail from, I only exercise my freedom of speech. It is up to the postmasters of other servers which mails they choose to accept and which they refuse. But more to the point, even if I were to remove you from my personal list, you would still find your emails blocked because there are numerous other people who have received spam for your domain and added you to blacklists. My personal advice to you is to register a different domain and gradually switch over to that (and this time keep your hands clean). Unfortunately for you, the damage to your domain name is already done and you have no one else to blame for that but your own carelessness. Regards Joe Wein Yokohama, Japan ==== From: "Christian Schiffer" <memberservice(a)single4you.net> To: "'Joe Wein'" <joewein(a)pobox.com> Sent: Monday, 27 September, 2004 0:11 Subject: RE: [BLACKLIST] www.single4you.net Notice of legal action Mr. Wein, This is the absolute last warning. The accusation of spam against our company is not correct; furthermore we do not admit having spammed anyone at any point in time. That the business we purchased our mailing list from are spammers is not our fault, if you need to put someone on your blacklist, put them on, they are the once behind spam, they were advertising their opt inn list as a consented list of users interested in our product. Hiding behind the freedom of speech act and denying other the same right is ridicules. I will not waste anymore time with you but hand over this matter to our lawyer's tomorrow morning. That you admit not having even tried to contact us, having blacklisted us without any reason or concern and then even admitting to hiding by denying our e-mail speaks for itself. Even now after the second mail explaining how this could happen and trying to reach a friendly solution you are still in denial of your offence. We will therefore sue you not only for the business lost in the future but also for the business lost in the past. You are looking at a multimillion dollar lawsuit; I hope you can afford that. I also suspect you working for the completion and our law firm will investigate that too. Should you choose not too submit to our demands within the hour this will be your loss. I can assure you that we will take any action possible within the law to bring you down, both financial and personal, for trying to wreck our business. Christian Schiffer ==== That's it so far Joe -- http://www.joewein.de/sw/spam.htm

5 7

Whitelist Request
by Bitz 27 Sep '04

27 Sep '04

The followings domains are listed at WS_URI_RBL, can we whitelist them please? :-) npd . com - Record created on 27-Jan-1995 sendafriend . com - Record created on 09-Sep-1999 feelgoodpages . com - Record created on 26-Oct-2000 I don't personally use sendafriend and feelgoodpages, but as jeff states on his previous e-mails, they have legit use and shouldn't be listed :-) Thanks, -b.

4 3

mbox folders needed
by Ryan Thompson 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

Hi everybody, By popular demand, I'm adding mbox support to GetURI (currently it just works with maildir; directories containing RFC822 messages). I only have a couple different examples of mbox folders from my system. Would a few of you mind sending me some representative mbox samples (10-1000 messages would be ideal)? Either ham or spam is fine. You can compress (.tar.gz preferred, but .zip is okay) and email them to me, or just provide me with a URL to download. I'll delete them once I've run my tests, and I won't make a point of reading the actual messages. - Ryan -- Ryan Thompson <ryan(a)sasknow.com> SaskNow Technologies - http://www.sasknow.com 901-1st Avenue North - Saskatoon, SK - S7K 1Y4 Tel: 306-664-3600 Fax: 306-244-7037 Saskatoon Toll-Free: 877-727-5669 (877-SASKNOW) North America

1 0

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Question re: integration with SpamAssassin 3.0
by alden＠engineno9inc.com 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

>Hi! >>> A grep inside your rules dir would have told ;) >>> >>> 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_SC_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 2 >>> 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_WS_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 4 >>> 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_PH_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 8 >>> 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_OB_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 16 >>> 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_AB_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 32 >> While it's true that the rules are there, don't we have to add scores to >> local.cf? (I upgraded this AM, too). >No, the scores are in the default rulesets. Again, a simple grep would >have told you ;) >[root at vmx01 spamassassin]# grep SURBL * | grep score >50_scores.cf:score URIBL_AB_SURBL 0 2.007 0 0.417 >50_scores.cf:score URIBL_OB_SURBL 0 1.996 0 3.213 >50_scores.cf:score URIBL_PH_SURBL 0 0.839 0 2.000 >50_scores.cf:score URIBL_SC_SURBL 0 3.897 0 4.263 >50_scores.cf:score URIBL_WS_SURBL 0 0.539 0 1.462 >Bye, >Raymond. Yep. Just realized it before I read this. Sorry, and thanks! --Alden

1 0

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Question re: integration with SpamAssassin 3.0
by alden＠engineno9inc.com 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:19:01 +0200 (CEST) > From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn <raymond(a)prolocation.net> > Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Question re: integration with > SpamAssassin 3.0 > To: SURBL Discussion list <discuss(a)lists.surbl.org> > Message-ID: > <Pine.LNX.4.61.0409261916300.22651(a)mailbox.prolocation.net> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Hi! > >> I have been using the SURBL plugin with SA 2.64 successfully and have >> just upgraded SA to 3.0. In the docs it states that it is best to >> use multi.surbl.org with 3.0. Is this configured by default >> somewhere or do I need to add the rule to local.cf?? > > This is enabled by default, of you have modules like Net::DNS installed. > >> I have been watching the spam processed so far this morning and I am >> getting hits on the lists I had configured with 2.64 but not multi >> which is why I ask. > > You still see the hits on the seperate lists. > > Thy show up like: URIBL_WS_SURBL and URIBL_OB_SURBL for example. > >> If I do need to add the rule, what is the exact syntax to use for >> 3.0?? > > No need to do that. > >> My apologies if this has been covered before - my searches came up >> pretty empty. > > A grep inside your rules dir would have told ;) > > 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_SC_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 2 > 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_WS_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 4 > 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_PH_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 8 > 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_OB_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 16 > 25_uribl.cf:urirhssub URIBL_AB_SURBL multi.surbl.org. A 32 > > Bye, > Raymond. > > > ------------------------------ While it's true that the rules are there, don't we have to add scores to local.cf? (I upgraded this AM, too). Regards, Alden

2 1

Question re: integration with SpamAssassin 3.0
by Ed Kasky 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

I really hope that this is not too obvious but I can't find a clear answer to this so here goes ;-) I have been using the SURBL plugin with SA 2.64 successfully and have just upgraded SA to 3.0. In the docs it states that it is best to use multi.surbl.org with 3.0. Is this configured by default somewhere or do I need to add the rule to local.cf?? I have been watching the spam processed so far this morning and I am getting hits on the lists I had configured with 2.64 but not multi which is why I ask. If I do need to add the rule, what is the exact syntax to use for 3.0?? My apologies if this has been covered before - my searches came up pretty empty. Thanks. Ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Randomly generated quote: A closed mind is like a closed book: just a block of wood.

2 2

mailbacks.com OB FP?
by Jeff Chan 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

Does anyone have opinions on whether mailbacks.com should be whitelisted? Currently it's in OB, but it has no NANAS or SBL hits. Registrant: Vincent Associates INc (TOFGMBXNWD) 26 Lesmill Rd Toronto Ontario M3B 2T5 CA Domain Name: MAILBACKS.COM Administrative Contact: Vincent Associates INc royst(a)vincentinc.com 26 Lesmill Rd Toronto Ontario M3B 2T5 CA 416 445 5443 x 236 fax: 416 445 4504 Technical Contact: Retail Holding Inc. NSI nsiholding(a)verisign.com NSI Retail Holding Inc. 13200 Woodland Park Drive Herndon VA 20171 CH 818-547-9420 fax: 818-547-9420 Record expires on 12-Aug-2014. Record created on 12-Aug-2004. Database last updated on 26-Sep-2004 05: 11: 36 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS0.VINCENTINC.COM 209.5.255.57 NS1.VINCENTINC.COM 209.167.106.57 NS0.BIZCONTINUITY.COM 209.167.206.130 NS2.BIZCONTINUITY.COM 207.219.9.10 Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

2 4

Whitelisting doubleclick domains?
by Jeff Chan 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

Someone pointed out off list that Doubleclick domains appear in some of the SURBL lists, and that while they do appear in some spams, they also appear in a lot of hams. Therefore should we whitelist Doubleclick domains? Thanks to some good research tools, we have a list of some of them: * 1: 0mm.com * 2: 2clk.net * 3: abacus-direct.com * 4: businesslink-2.net * 5: businesslink.net * 6: cr-mail.org * 7: dartmail.com * 8: dartmail.net * 9: dartmail3.net * 10: dclk.net * 11: destinationwww.com * 12: double-click.com * 13: doubleclick.com * 14: doubleclick.de * 15: doubleclick.net * 16: maildart.net * 17: messagemedia.com * 18: opt-inemail.com * 19: optin-email.com * 20: unitymail.net Again, we know they appear in some spammy mailings. But do they appear in enough hammy messages to whitelist? Comments? Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

2 2

OB FP
by Theo Van Dinter 26 Sep '04

26 Sep '04

Found this during my weekly SpamAssassin net-test run: overseasvote2004.com -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Spending time with my ex-wife this weekend was more enjoyable than this interview, but it was close." - Unknown

2 1

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