Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1862 discussions

OT: What's up with spamcop...
by Patrik Nilsson 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Once again, outgoing IPs for bulk.scd.yahoo.com, sourceforge.net, etc, are getting listed on spamcop. I thought they had got past these kind of obvious FP problems. Anyone know what is going on? Patrik

1 0

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] russian pill-pushing gangsters
by List Mail User 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

>... > > >One (and possibly two) of my domains are being joe'd at the moment, >and I'd like to submit the following domains to SURBL: > >amotusfemmf .com >jocosehnajj .com >unbungkanbe .com >uigurimfif .com >eremichnmnl .com > >editehkce .com >revertalmgd .com >tanachklgmj .com >vadymbicm .com > >burtonabdea .com >dutchibabd .com >akimbomjmcm .com >phudleaj .com > >Thanks, >Steve > >PS: up til now, I've been feeding domains to Chris S.; what do I need >to do to submit these directly? > >-- >hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com >join us! http://hesketh.com/about/careers/account_manager.html join us! >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > Several of these domains were part of a fraud purpertrated by YesNIC yesterday. The name servers were removed from the registration data listings, but the "Updated Date" was not changed. I filed complaints at the internic about sevral of them. Given that they now (at least the ones I've checked) have no name servers, they are eligible for nomination to rfci's "whois" list (if I have been there first), and subject to delisting by filing the form at the internic (i.e. wdprs.internic.net - just fill out the section of name servers, noting that they have none). One of them, jocosehnajj. com, is a brand new registration, it didn't show up at the internic this morning, nut by a good guess, I found it at whois.directnic.net. Paul Shupak track(a)plectere.com

1 0

XS hits
by Paul Shields 24 Apr '05

24 Apr '05

Below are some stats from our incoming mail since midnight 23/04/05. I'm not going to go into too deep an analysis as it's the weekend and I'm too 'tired' to do that ;). Total nbr of messages with at least one ??_SURBL hit over the last 22 hours was around 1.4 million. The counts below show how many triggered as 'spam' ("result: Y"), and how many didn't trigger ("result: \."). This is based on our Spam Assassin default threshold of 8, but we have many custom rules so spam threshold is really only meaningful to our config - YMMV ;). We don't currently block or tag via SURBL/RBL at the MTA layer - everything goes through SA. XS popped up reasonably frequently in all SURBL hits - and we had 10456 XS spam hits where it wasn't listed in any other URIBL (unable to say how many false-positives out of that list, but our default tagging threshold is high in SA and FP's are vanishingly small). Anyway - make of it as you will. SURBL rocks anyway - XS *may* be a useful addition. Cheers Paul -- --- List of all messages (spam and non-spam) that included a SURBL hit: report01:/tmp# wc surbl-2005-04-23.log 1447355 SURBL XS Non-spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep XS_SURBL|grep -c "result: \." 6283 SURBL XS Spam (including messages that had other SURBL hits) report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep XS_SURBL|grep -c "result: Y" 939134 --- Nbr of XS spam hits that weren't in any other SURBL lists: report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log| egrep -v "URIBL_AB_SURBL|URIBL_OB_SURBL|URIBL_PH_SURBL|URIBL_SC_SURBL|URIBL_WS_SURBL|URIBL_JP_SURBL" |grep -c "result: Y" 10456 -- Nbr of non-spam XS hits (not in any other SURBL lists): report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|egrep -v "URIBL_AB_SURBL|URIBL_OB_SURBL|URIBL_PH_SURBL|URIBL_SC_SURBL|URIBL_WS_SURBL|URIBL_JP_SURBL" |grep -c "result: \." 5300 --- AB non spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep AB_SURBL|grep -c "result: \." 604 AB spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep AB_SURBL|grep -c "result: Y" 521886 --- WS non-spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep WS_SURBL|grep -c "result: \." 12578 WS spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep WS_SURBL|grep -c "result: Y" 996200 --- JP non-spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep JP_SURBL|grep -c "result: \." 4376 JP spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep JP_SURBL|grep -c "result: Y" 1234602 --- OB non-spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep OB_SURBL|grep -c "result: \." 36760 OB spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep OB_SURBL|grep -c "result: Y" 1139181 --- SC non-spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep SC_SURBL|grep -c "result: \." 1095 SC spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep SC_SURBL|grep -c "result: Y" 751549 --- PH non-spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep PH_SURBL|grep -c "result: \." 1 PH spam report01:/tmp# cat surbl-2005-04-23.log|grep PH_SURBL|grep -c "result: Y" 383

3 4

Re: New xs.surbl list
by Jeff Chan 23 Apr '05

23 Apr '05

[forwarded with Paul's permission. Please comment.] From: Jeff Chan To: Paul Shupak Date: Friday, April 22, 2005, 12:06:46 AM Subject: New xs.surbl list On Thursday, April 21, 2005, 6:16:16 PM, Paul wrote: > Jeff, > I don't know the current method used to decide when to add domains > to your new list, and I definitely see *much* smaller levels of spam than > many others on the various mailing lists. It's the top 97th percentile of hits, which only gets about a hundred more new records (domains and IPs) than we already have in SURBLs. We can crank that up later when we get the FP issues nailed down better, though improved processing techniques. > However, my own experience, so far, > is that absolutely no "zero-hour" spams have been caught, Yes, that's because the new URI hit counts must overcome the mass of earlier reports. There may be smarter ways to organize this, but simply lowering the threshold of inclusion (e.g., going to the 98th percentile) would get more on the list sooner. > but very many Spamcop > reports (about 1/2 hour later) do trigger; So I have to agree with the few who > have suggested a much more aggressive decision about when to add. Yes, I agree too. :-) When I announced the list for testing I said we'd start conservative to get a feeling for the data. > I'm making my own proposal here to avoid the political complications > of which sources I will suggest using: > Clearly, since the attempt is to catch domains, and RHS list is of no > value for verification. I would propose a "point system" where you assign one > point each for every hit of both the URI's own IP and each of its name servers > IPs for each of the following lists: > sbl.spamhaus.org > combined-HIB.dnsiplists.completewhois.com [ combined-HIB.dnsiplists.completewhois.com is a composite list of bogus IP blocks, hijacked IPs, and blocks with invalid whois data. See: http://www.completewhois.com/bogons/bogons_usage.htm ] > and one point for each SpamCop report. A likely total score of 5 or 6 should > probably trigger its inclusion - i.e. it would be possible to get on the list > by having the original URI and two of the name servers on each list, despite > not yet having any SpamCop reports (in the middle of the day, SpamCop slows > down greatly - sometimes to a crawl, with one hour+ turn-around time between > reporting and verification - and you get the data some time later!). > Possibly adding some of the even more aggressive lists like FIVETEN > and NOMOREFUNN at a half point (or other lower weight) could help also. You > can alway revisit the entries at a later time (i.e. if the "aggressive" points > are used to add the entry, the timeout can be set low -- If a more conservative > scheme later applies also, the timeout can be raised to its full value). > I think this would give a much better chance of catching "zero-hour" > spam. So far, I have 12 SpamCop reports, that have hit XS (about 10 hours of > use), but not a single original spam (out of ~110). > Just an idea. > Bye, > paul Good suggestions. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

3 5

RE: Research wanted: age of spam gang URI domains
by Chris Santerre 23 Apr '05

23 Apr '05

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 7:46 PM >To: SURBL Discuss; SpamAssassin Users >Subject: Research wanted: age of spam gang URI domains > > >Does anyone have research or references for the age profiles of >domains appearing in the URIs of spam gang (i.e. Ralsky, Lindsay, >Richter, etc.) spams? In other words, how old are the domains of >sites being spamvertised *by spam gangs*? (By age I mean how >long ago they were (most recently) created.) > >Jeff C. Off the top of my nogging, I've seen the major guys be about 1-3 days from registering. However...... I also saw a pattern a few spammers using ones registered 3 months prior. This is when I began to theorise that there was possibly a spam domain service. Someone simply registering domain names full time, then selling them out to other spammers. I started researching the idea, then got busy on other stuff. When things settle I'll try to pick back up on the research. Sorry I don't have any hard data for you. --Chris

4 4

XS FP
by Daniel Kleinsinger 23 Apr '05

23 Apr '05

XS tagged an email from peak.org. I can't forward the email, but peak.org seems to be an ISP in Oregon. Also, the only place peak.org appears in the email is in a section of the email showing envelope information from a previous email in the reply chain. >Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 03:54:43 -0700 (PDT) >Subject: Re: blah blah blah blah >From: businesscontact(a)peak.org >To: "someone" <someone(a)mindspring.com> Does that look like a URL to the URIBL plugin? I'm using SA 3.0.2. That's been the only email tagged by XS that had a final score less than 10 so it was easy to spot. Daniel

2 1

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Testing: xs.surbl.org (CBL Data)
by Jeff Chan 23 Apr '05

23 Apr '05

Chris Barton of McAfee spotted the following FPs in the XS data. Looks like they could all be avoided by a date of registration filter where domain registrations older than say 1 year were excluded. Anyone have feedback on Chris' findings? Engineering a date of registration engine is probably my next project. It could be used as a general tool within SURBLs. (If anyone has an existing tool to share, it could definitely help.) Jeff C. __ Some possible xs. FP's for you... ets.org NANAS 27 - mostly mailto's by the look of it. no SBL/XBL - no spamcop Created On:10-Oct-1994 javaworld.com NANAS 7 - all old, no SBL/XBL no spamcop Created On: 1995-Nov-22 disneyland.com - no brainer? 91x.net - NANAS DODGY - Looks like a URL service - http://91i.net/index.shtml - Also on multi. - no spamcop - No XBL/SBL - Creation Date: 19-sep-2003 atspace.com NANAS 12 - host with a few small issues - look ok - NO XBL/SBL/spamcop - Creation Date: 16-jan-2004 dante.net - NANAS 18 - ISP with a few issues - look ok - NO sbl/xbl/spamcop - Created 1993 epolitix.com - NANAS 0 - no xbl/sbl/spamcop - look ok - created 1999 hopto.org - NANAS DODGY but it belongs to no-ip.com who are cool. kit.net - NANAS VERY DODGY - Looks like a URL service though. Listed on multi. created 1997 no xbl/sbl/spamcop I wouldn't like to call it ham at this point as it appears to have a hosting issue atm. peak.org - NANAS DODGY - Looks like an ISP with a few issues to me, nice spam filter logo - no XBL/SBL/spamcop created 21-Dec-1994 qq.com - looks like a portal rather than spammers - no xbl/sbl - NANAS 134 - created 04-may-1995 researchandmarkets.com - NANAS 18 - no xbl/sbl/spamcop - created 1992

1 0

xs.surbl.org
by David Coulson 23 Apr '05

23 Apr '05

I have this zone loaded on my three name servers - I tried to e-mail Jeff, but his mail server incorrected performed a SPF query against an internal IP in the mail headers rather than against the IP which actually connected to surbl.org to deliver the message. David

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] xs.surbl.org preliminary results
by Owen, Daniel 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

Correction I just realized that these numbers are slightly skewed. I drop any e-mail that SA scores above a 20.9 . So all of the numbers should probably be slightly higher. As far as FPs go I don't see FPs being affected at all. I just wanted to add the note in since it means that the XS rules may have a higher strike percentage than this indicates. I'm considering letting everything come through tagged without dropping anything for a 24 hour period just to see what the real one day numbers are. Beyond this testing it would be helpful for me just to see how much mail I really am blocking. If I decide to do that it'll be sometime mid next week. -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces(a)lists.surbl.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Owen, Daniel Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 11:56 AM To: SURBL Discussion list; Jeff Chan Subject: RE: [SURBL-Discuss] xs.surbl.org preliminary results More stats. I'll continue to do these internally but unless something interesting comes up I probably won't post stats on a daily basis unless someone wants to see them. 4/21/05 total e-mails: 9059 total strikes: 1226 (13.5% of total e-mail) spam strikes: 1225 ham strikes: 1 (see details below) total messages marked as spam (all rules): 6917 (76.4% of total e-mail) total messages marked as spam (all rules) also marked by XS: 1187 also in: URIBL_AB_SURBL: 244 URIBL_OB_SURBL: 956 URIBL_PH_SURBL: 0 URIBL_SC_SURBL: 872 URIBL_WS_SURBL: 1008 URIBL_JP_SURBL: 1077 NOT in any one of the above: 107 (.087% of total XS strikes) The false positive: This was a mailing list posting. The sender was sending through input-MUNGE.com which has a standard disclaimer that includes input-MUNGED.com. Looking at news.admin.net-abuse.sightings I see several reports of advanced-inputMUNGED.com. Could that be it? I also see 3 that appear to have numerous garbage URLs included but they are 2003 and 2004 so they should not be the issue. Anyway. It's the first false positive I have seen using the XS list. URIBL_WS_SURBL also hits this one. This email contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the person to whom it is directed and intended. Any reproduction, dissemination or other use of this email by anyone who is not the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, you should advise the sender immediately and delete the email from your mail box. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] xs.surbl.org preliminary results
by Owen, Daniel 22 Apr '05

22 Apr '05

More stats. I'll continue to do these internally but unless something interesting comes up I probably won't post stats on a daily basis unless someone wants to see them. 4/21/05 total e-mails: 9059 total strikes: 1226 (13.5% of total e-mail) spam strikes: 1225 ham strikes: 1 (see details below) total messages marked as spam (all rules): 6917 (76.4% of total e-mail) total messages marked as spam (all rules) also marked by XS: 1187 also in: URIBL_AB_SURBL: 244 URIBL_OB_SURBL: 956 URIBL_PH_SURBL: 0 URIBL_SC_SURBL: 872 URIBL_WS_SURBL: 1008 URIBL_JP_SURBL: 1077 NOT in any one of the above: 107 (.087% of total XS strikes) The false positive: This was a mailing list posting. The sender was sending through input-MUNGE.com which has a standard disclaimer that includes input-MUNGED.com. Looking at news.admin.net-abuse.sightings I see several reports of advanced-inputMUNGED.com. Could that be it? I also see 3 that appear to have numerous garbage URLs included but they are 2003 and 2004 so they should not be the issue. Anyway. It's the first false positive I have seen using the XS list. URIBL_WS_SURBL also hits this one. This email contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the person to whom it is directed and intended. Any reproduction, dissemination or other use of this email by anyone who is not the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, you should advise the sender immediately and delete the email from your mail box.

1 0

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