- Discuss - Mailman 3

[OT] FUN: Something to send your family members!
by Chris Santerre 15 Sep '04

15 Sep '04

I lost my freakin mind last night. I was about to drive to someone's house and stick the phone someplace they didn't want it ;) Rather then just rant about it, I figured I would take my anger and put it towards something constructive. So for anyone who knows what I'm talking about on this page, feel free to spam it to all your friends and family! ;) http://www.rulesemporium.com/rant.html Chris Santerre System Admin and SARE Ninja http://www.rulesemporium.com http://www.surbl.org 'It is not the strongest of the species that survives, not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.' Charles Darwin

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] important reduce wrise renkles & skin spots ( fwd)
by Chris Santerre 14 Sep '04

14 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Steven Champeon [mailto:schampeo@hesketh.com] >Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 3:16 PM >To: 'SURBL Discussion list' >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] important reduce wrise renkles & >skin spots >( fwd) > > >on Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:40:32PM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote: >> Not all of these are listed in SURBL: > >Neither are these: > >92sell3323serve.biz >ball5552drugs.biz >cheapest5145tabs.biz >cheapestt216655tabs.biz >extra3535pills.biz >global2000hosting.net >hide5056tabs.biz >myprog3205pillys.biz >odevide2003drugs.biz >optin9987free.net >serenajones2000netscape.net >stored78778pillllls.biz >vgeorge7098drugs.biz >your1511pills.biz >your2512pills.biz > >FYI. > Actually I did another search and came up with over 650+ WOW! --Chris

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] important reduce wrise renkles & skin spots ( fwd)
by Chris Santerre 14 Sep '04

14 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net] >Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 8:48 PM >To: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] important reduce wrise renkles & skin spots >(fwd) > > >Hi! > >Our favorite pill spammers also try to get around SURBL now. > >I dont want to end up making SA rulesets for this, any suggestions ? > >ns3.airmaramba.biz >ns3.avk29.biz > >The same crap... But, with less SA hits now, since its not touched by >SURBL. Bah. > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:50:29 +0100 >From: kenneth clakley <auroraschorn(a)rfc.every1.net> >To: wilfredo moote <reyes(a)prolocation.net> >Subject: important reduce wrise renkles & skin spots > >suc-oneonta sony-steo lettery > > >>From inside to outside, from w^eig_ht l`o^ss to skin care. From mental >relief to physical relief, from antidepressant to muscle >relaxant. The care >inside out. > >you can copy > >wjq.s.adjuster6370pinn.com/56/ > >to your browser > I wrote this for SARE: >> uri ANUMA /\.[a-z]{4,}\d{4,}[a-z]{4,}\.(?:com|net|biz|info|org)/i >> describe ANUMA Domain with ALPHAs NUMBERs APLHAs >> score ANUMA 1.0 >> >> to catch tons of this: >> stiffed5912tads.com >> unawares6248pinn.com >> snoozed2548rneds.com >> 585paperwork970tads.com >> congener1455rneds.com --Chris

3 2

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Whitelist Please
by Chris Santerre 14 Sep '04

14 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de] >Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 10:01 PM >To: discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Whitelist Please > > >Jeff Chan wrote: > >> Chris and Ryan and Raymond, don't even think about proposing >> a subdomain list. LOL! ;-) > >What's the problem with this idea ? It would be only one level >above the real host, so for say claranet.de you would have to >consider www.claranet.de and xyzzy.claranet.de, but you would >ignore www.xyzzy.claranet.de or more.levels.xyzzy.claranet.de > >Then if I start to spamvertize my site you catch me without >hitting any other user.claranet.de (let alone www.claranet.de) > >Assuming that my ISP doesn't neeed weeks to cancel my account >after I started to spam the xyzzy entry will expire soon. > >> It's about time ICANN cracked down on rogue registrars. > >I'll believe it when I see it. These registrars pay ICANN's >budget, don't they ? > >> There will always be disagreement about that optimization >> point. That is natural. (It's also a PITA.) > >Sometimes your criteria appear to be a bit obscure for me. >Of course some people may love a "joke of the day" mail - >that's okay, if they like it they won't report it as spam. > >But others don't like any unsolicited jokes, and they would >report it as spam. In that case the joke-of-the-day site >_is_ spamming, and it's okay to list them. Even if they >also have some real fans with a "legit" interest in their >joke of the day. In that case you can't avoid a collateral >damage, whatever you do. > Bye, Frank > hmmm.... can't we treat these like we treat com.ar tld? or co.uk? Like Frank said, just checking the subdomain one more level up for these guys. I don't see the harm in that. Or am I missing something again? I think what Jeff meant was another SURBL list entirely ;) No, I think we have enough as well. --Chris

4 6

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Large ham corpus hits against SURBLs
by Chris Santerre 14 Sep '04

14 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 2:40 AM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] Large ham corpus hits against SURBLs > > >I've extracted the plaintext * URI domains from a 14 GB ham corpus, >taken the top 70th and 85th percentiles of the most frequently >occurring domains and compared them against all SURBL domains, >the master list of which can be found at: > > http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/multi.domains.sort > >At the 70th percentile level, there were only two matches: > > automotivedigest.com > processrequest.com > >At the 85th percentile there were a few more: > > automotivedigest.com > chartshop.com > ct002.com > dakotaairparts.com > hallogram.com > infoaeroplan.ca > investorsinsight.com > processrequest.com > sitepronews.com > topachat.com > >These are arguably false positives. What do we know about them. >Should we whitelist or not whitelist any? > > >* looking at plaintext has advantages and disadvantages: > >1. quick and easy >2. does not "double or triple count" messages which also >have BASE 64 or quoted printable encoded versions of the same URIs >3. misses some such encoded URIs which don't have plaintext >equivalents in a different part of the message > >Nonetheless the data are still probably generally useful. > Nice work. I got none of these marked as spammers. I think sitepronews has caught my eye a few times, but not enough to be marked. Site pro also has: * 1: allbusinessnews.com * 2: exactseek.com * 3: ezinehub.com * 4: goarticles.com * 5: novicenews.com * 6: sitepronews.com * 7: submitexpress.com * 8: zinehub.com Chartshop linked to: * 1: astrology.com * 2: astronet.com * 3: chartshop.com * 4: kweb.com ct002 linked to (raises an eyebrow): * 1: 123banners.com * 2: 123greetings-inc.com * 3: 123greetings.com * 4: 123greetings.info * 5: ct002.com dakotaairports.com linked to: * 1: a250support.com * 2: avsupport.com * 3: dakotaairparts.com * 4: partslogistics.com investorsinsight.com not linked to anyone, but on more then a few peoples lists. However NANAS reports would have me believe they should NOT be listed. (Odd huh?) processrequest.com linked to: * 1: e2communications.com * 2: processrequest.com * 3: prq0.com Check http://tinyurl.com/4ds43 Just going to their website screams to me to watch them closely! If they are legit, they should be using SURBL to watch their own customers. They are a member of the evil empire DMA as well. In my jaded mind, thats an automatic block here at my company. Obviously different for SURBL. This one needs to be contacted and watched, IMHO. topachat.com linked to: * 1: topachat-clust.com * 2: topachat.com They appear clean and possibly Joe Jobbed. Keep in mind, these lists are just good info. They shouldn't be used soely to determine their spammyness on their own. These lists are just to see who they are linkd to, and sometimes those links speak volumes. Like ct002 might need further investigation. HTH someone. --Chris

3 5

FP on WS
by Bill Landry 14 Sep '04

14 Sep '04

Found orchardbank-MUNGED-.com is listed on WS. Probably doesn't need much justification for removal, but the domain was registered on May 30, 1997. Found two old NANAS listing, one from 11/02 and one from 2/03. Bill

2 2

OFF-TOPIC: CBS Forgery Scam
by Rob McEwen 14 Sep '04

14 Sep '04

OFF-TOPIC: CBS Forgery Scam (forgive me Jeff) I've studied this thoroughly. I can say 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is a forgery propagated by CBS. Has anyone been following this? Does anyone doubt what I just said? Rob McEwen

2 2

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

Probable FPs
by Ryan Thompson 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

I found the following domains listed in a ~20K ham corpus from the last couple of days: Domain Age in Days Score (#msgs) attac.biz 826 -3.3333 (1) blah.com 3462 -3.3333 (1) chartshop.com 2275 -3.3333 (1) publicaster.com 965 -3.3333 (1) resortvacationstogo.com 1849 -3.3333 (1) send4fun.com 1681 -30.0000 (1) surveymonkey.com 1770 -3.3333 (4) topcities.com 1926 -2.5000 (1) whtirc.com 246 -3.2491 (1) whtradio.com 196 -2.3630 (1) Full GetURI output: http://ry.ca/geturi/runs/20040910-fps.html Quick look: attac.biz Looks real fishy, but appeared in some travel newsletter. Related to eturbonews.com. Maybe de-list, but don't whitelist. blah.com This was in a ProFTPd mailing list message "how do I set up a virtual host for "blah.com". chartshop.com Astrology.com newsletter. People really do sign up for those things. surveymonkey.com AFAICT, mostly legit surveys send4fun.com Jokes, example was person to person links topcities.com Free subdomain host. whtirc.com, whtradio.com Web Hosting Talk newsletter. Yes, it's legit. publicaster.com Used in some legit newsletters/mass media resortvacationstogo.com Looks mostly legit, and they've been around for 1800+ days without any NANAS hits at all. Related to vacationstogo.com. With the exception of attac.biz, I'd say whitelist the lot of these, unless anyone knows some reason why not. :-) The *real* cool part is GetURI (devel version) actually processed all of these messages in one run, producing ~4MB of output. Mozilla, on the other hand, crashed rather unceremoniously. Be thankful I re-ran on only the messages that generated the FPs. :-) Also, if someone wants to go through the *other* domains (i.e., those on a grey (not blue) background), there are probably quite a few other whitelist candidates there. (gc.ca, for instance :-) - 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

7 11

FP in OB & WS?
by Bill Landry 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

The link below was included in an e-mail announcing the Seattle Career Fair by National Career Fairs (http://www.nationalcareerfairs.com/). I found no NANAS listing for this domain. http://www.ncfmail1-MUNGED-.com/lt/t_go.php?i=429&e=aGVhdGhlcnJAdmFsbGV5aW5… This link redirects to a registration page on the National Career Fairs web site. Bill

2 1

No SURBL hits on issip iadb
by Jeff Chan 12 Sep '04

12 Sep '04

I checked all the SURBL blocklist records against iadb and got no hits. http://www.isipp.com/iadb.php (This is with checking domains against iddb, then taking the IP addresses resolved by iddb and checking those against iadb.) http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/iadb-check Against the entire whitelist (but excluding the .us geographic parent domains), I got one hit: > thisistrue.com: 127.0.0.2 > thisistrue.com: 127.0.1.255 > thisistrue.com: 127.3.100.10 > thisistrue.com: 127.0.0.1 Due to the low hit rates iadb may not be useful for us yet in checking for fps. Perhaps when it has more records, it will be. Or perhaps there isn't much overlap between our spammers, our whitelists and iadb, which is also a reasonable answer. Jeff C.

1 0

Software spam with recently registered (fake?) sender domains
by Joe Wein 12 Sep '04

12 Sep '04

In recent days I've seen a lot of pirate software advertised in spam that uses a sender address of the form "Firstname1 Lastname1" Firstname2Lastname2@suspectdomain where suspectdomain is a very recently registered domain (late August-early September). Previously software spammers used all kinds of fake sender domains, but non they had registered themselves and not specifically recently registered ones. Has anyone else noticed this and has any thoughts about it? I wonder if spammers are buying lists of recently registered domain names off registrars in order to poison domain blacklists? Joe -- http://www.joewein.de/sw/jwSpamSpy/

4 5

important reduce wrise renkles & skin spots (fwd)
by Raymond Dijkxhoorn 11 Sep '04

11 Sep '04

Hi! Our favorite pill spammers also try to get around SURBL now. I dont want to end up making SA rulesets for this, any suggestions ? ns3.airmaramba.biz ns3.avk29.biz The same crap... But, with less SA hits now, since its not touched by SURBL. Bah. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:50:29 +0100 From: kenneth clakley <auroraschorn(a)rfc.every1.net> To: wilfredo moote <reyes(a)prolocation.net> Subject: important reduce wrise renkles & skin spots suc-oneonta sony-steo lettery >From inside to outside, from w^eig_ht l`o^ss to skin care. From mental relief to physical relief, from antidepressant to muscle relaxant. The care inside out. you can copy wjq.s.adjuster6370pinn.com/56/ to your browser Licks his lips. And then his greed gets the better of him and penetr'a_te13 wlozyly 05 revolutionibuswdrazaniem wypocin

3 5

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

RE: Start an IP list to block?
by Chris Santerre 11 Sep '04

11 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 8:44 PM >To: Jeff Chan >Cc: Pete McNeil; SURBL Discussion list; Spamassassin-Talk >Subject: Re: Start an IP list to block? > > >On Thursday, September 9, 2004, 5:34:05 PM, Jeff Chan wrote: >> My first pass at cleaning the resolved IP data would be to take >> the to 70th percentile of IP addresses and only use those to >> check domain resolved IPs to. It's not perfect, but it should >> cut down on the uncertainty. > >I should add that this mostly applies to data where we have a >constant feed of actual spam reports such as from SpamCop. It >does not apply as strongly to data sources where we only have a >unitary list of domains, for example where each domain appears >once over the whole list. Though even there, it applies weakly, >for example a dozen domains that all resolve to the same network >probably could be used to bias future domains appearing in the >same network towards list inclusion. > >But when you have a stream of reports about the *same domain*, >then you can get better statistics about that domain or it's >resolved IP. There simply more data to work with in more >meaningful ways. > Holy confusion! I can't tell where you are on this subject now Jeff :) Are you saying , that if we get really good data like what was in my original post, and we keep the data in the 90th percentile area, then we might possibly be able to list the IP hosts and have SURBL check against it? If so..I'm up for that. Granted it would take a little more research then just a domain listing, but I think the benefits are very good. Especially if we keep it only high ranking IP offenders. I mean, we may add less then 50 IPs a year? Just the really nasty spammers. Anyway, its been a great discussion. If we've learned anything in the last 24 hours, its that the Patriots defense needs some work against the run game ;) --Chris (Go Tom Brady!)

3 5

Whitelist all Bonded Senders?
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

> Since you're checking out Bonded Sender, can you request a zone > transfer or rsync from these guys too so we can check their data? > Note that the Bonded Sender status of a sender (are they or aren't they) is incorporated into the IADB data. The same for Habeas status, and whether they publish SPF records, among many other things (the complete list of information one can glean from an IADB lookup is available here: http://www.isipp.com/iadbcodes.php) As Jeff notes, you can sign up to query here: http://iadb.isipp.com/iadb_query_sign_up.php If you have any questions, or suggestions, please feel free to contact me personally. Anne Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. President/CEO Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ Committee Member, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop

4 10

RE: Start an IP list to block?
by Chris Santerre 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Matt Kettler [mailto:mkettler@evi-inc.com] >Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 5:53 PM >To: Chris Santerre; SURBL Discussion list (E-mail) >Cc: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) >Subject: RE: Start an IP list to block? > > >At 05:23 PM 9/9/2004, Chris Santerre wrote: >>OOOOOOHHHHH yeah! I didn't know that! Are we sure this is >actually what it >>means and not just a miss-syntaxed paragraph? It actually >resolves the IP >>against the RBL lookup? >> >>If so....well then...problem solved, and devs get a cookie :) > >Actually, upon closer read it checks the IP of the NS record.. So it's >essentially blacklisting the IP's of the DNS servers that >spammers are using. > >So, for http://www.merchantsoverseas.com, it would look at >your NS records: > > MerchantsOverseas.com. 18185 IN NS >auth20.ns.wcom.com. > MerchantsOverseas.com. 18185 IN NS >auth10.ns.wcom.com. > >And would check the IPs 198.6.100.37 (auth20.ns.wcom.com) and >198.6.100.21 (auth10.ns.wcom.com) WOW! I think this would hit more FPs then listing the IP! Am I wrong there! I would never list the name server, as they may be hosting for much more then just a spammer. That number is sure to be greater then a virtual hosts number for an IP. Maybe I'm missing something key? You won't see me ever add an NS IP to SURBL. Now that I've had time to think of it. --Chris

3 2

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] more FPs
by Chris Santerre 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Wein [mailto:joewein@pobox.com] >Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 10:47 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] more FPs > > >John Lundin wrote: >> emailfactory .com and emf0 .com (apparently same folks), >> being used as a web bug and unsub address, respectively. >> 183 and 22 NANAS, created oct '98 and feb '03. >> "Precision opt-in email marketing tools." > >emf1.com goes with those two. I've got emf0.com and emf1.com >listed because >of two spams sent to two spamtraps on Aug 25 and 28, 2004 >originating from >servers ice.emf0.com and bernard.emf1.com, advertising URLs with the >emf0.com and emf1.com domains. Both domains were less than a >year old, with >the name server listed on SBL. > >Whether or not we whitelist them for WS, they'll stay on my >local blacklist >:-) > Can you email either ryan or myself a copy of the spam? I'd still like to have it to list them in UC. Ryan have you listed these guys? I'm still forming my own list here. It grows very very slowly. I think I have less then ten domains to add to UC. --Chris

2 1

RE: Start an IP list to block?
by Kristopher Austin 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

It seems to me that Jeff is talking about a way of implementing what Chris is talking about. If not, then it still seems like a great compromise! I love the idea! Kris -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 9:44 AM To: SURBL Discussion list; Spamassassin-Talk Subject: Re: Start an IP list to block? On Friday, September 10, 2004, 7:33:10 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >>On Thursday, September 9, 2004, 5:34:05 PM, Jeff Chan wrote: >>> My first pass at cleaning the resolved IP data would be to take >>> the to 70th percentile of IP addresses and only use those to >>> check domain resolved IPs to. It's not perfect, but it should >>> cut down on the uncertainty. >> >>I should add that this mostly applies to data where we have a >>constant feed of actual spam reports such as from SpamCop. It >>does not apply as strongly to data sources where we only have a >>unitary list of domains, for example where each domain appears >>once over the whole list. Though even there, it applies weakly, >>for example a dozen domains that all resolve to the same network >>probably could be used to bias future domains appearing in the >>same network towards list inclusion. >> >>But when you have a stream of reports about the *same domain*, >>then you can get better statistics about that domain or it's >>resolved IP. There simply more data to work with in more >>meaningful ways. > Holy confusion! I can't tell where you are on this subject now Jeff :) > Are you saying , that if we get really good data like what was in my > original post, and we keep the data in the 90th percentile area, then we > might possibly be able to list the IP hosts and have SURBL check against it? > If so..I'm up for that. > Granted it would take a little more research then just a domain listing, but > I think the benefits are very good. Especially if we keep it only high > ranking IP offenders. I mean, we may add less then 50 IPs a year? Just the > really nasty spammers. If you're talking about adding resolved IP addresses to SURBLs, no we're not going to do that. :-( What I'm talking about is an internal process where we keep track of resolved IP addresses and use that to add new domains to SURBLs sooner if they resolve to a similar IP range (probably /24s). We would use the resolved IP addresses to add domains to sc.surbl.org and possibly other lists sooner. Most would probably get added on the first report. :-) http://www.surbl.org/faq.html#numbered Jeff C.

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Start an IP list to block?
by Matthew Wilson 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

If it helps, I agree with Chris. One point to note: Virtual hosters can't use IP addresses in their URLs, because the web server needs a http host header to differentiate between all the possible virtual hosted sites. However, it really wouldn't be difficult to have the SURBL URI detection algorithm find dotted quad URLs, and store these in the SURBL database just like any other domain name... -Matthew -----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces(a)lists.surbl.org [mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Chris Santerre Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 4:19 PM To: 'Raymond Dijkxhoorn'; Alex Broens Cc: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail); Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail); users-return-15498-sa-list=alexb.ch(a)spamassassin.apache.org Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Start an IP list to block? >-----Original Message----- >From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net] >Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 5:10 PM >To: Alex Broens >Cc: users-return-15498-sa-list=alexb.ch(a)spamassassin.apache.org; SURBL >Discussion list (E-mail); Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) >Subject: Re: Start an IP list to block? > > >Hi! > >> Chris, Raymond , >> >> I went thru a random few of these and they're were listed at >Spamhaus. >> Using spamhaus at SMTP level or SA doing RBL lookups would >have caught and >> stopped them... Spamcop probably has quite a few of them >listed as well > >No, that wont work. The spams are sended in via trojans/proxys only the >websites are static. SOME are blocked with DSBL and so but most of the >time they start a spamrun with a fresh set it seems. > >So yes, they are inside spamhaus, but only the websites, didnt see >mails sended out from there (yet). > Agreed. They may be listed, but for mail, not hosting. They use other IPs to send, and keep the host on their IPs. SOme of the bigger spammers are saying "Screw SURBL, I've got enough dough to get a new domain for every run, and it still remains profitible." To which we have 2 replies: 1) Those registers are going to feel some rath soon from the antispam community. 2) We gonna mark the IP, you silly little monkeys! I think the code should be added into the SURBL code. It would need to be a patch for SA 3.0 as it is prbly too late for it to go in now. But it should be simple to grab the IP of the 20 random URL domains and match against SURBL as well. Then they can purchase as many domains as they like, won't matter a bit. --Chris _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

5 7

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Start an IP list to block?
by Chris Santerre 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 6:16 PM >To: SURBL Discuss; SpamAssassin Users >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] RE: Start an IP list to block? > > >On Thursday, September 9, 2004, 2:26:37 PM, Chris Santerre wrote: > > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: jm(a)jmason.org [mailto:jm@jmason.org] >>>Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 5:17 PM >>>To: Raymond Dijkxhoorn >>>Cc: Alex Broens; >>>users-return-15498-sa-list=alexb.ch(a)spamassassin.apache.org; SURBL >>>Discussion list (E-mail); Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) >>>Subject: Re: Start an IP list to block? >>> >>> >>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> >>>Raymond Dijkxhoorn writes: >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> > Chris, Raymond , >>>> > >>>> > I went thru a random few of these and they're were listed >>>at Spamhaus. >>>> > Using spamhaus at SMTP level or SA doing RBL lookups would >>>have caught and >>>> > stopped them... Spamcop probably has quite a few of them >>>listed as well >>>> >>>> No, that wont work. The spams are sended in via >>>trojans/proxys only the >>>> websites are static. SOME are blocked with DSBL and so but >>>most of the >>>> time they start a spamrun with a fresh set it seems. >>>> >>>> So yes, they are inside spamhaus, but only the websites, >>>didnt see mails >>>> sended out from there (yet). >>> >>>Are their NS records listed in the SBL? >>> >>>- --j. > >> No, but extremely easy to add. However....I'm not sure Jeff >would like that. >> Would have to be a seperate list. > >> -_Chris > >ADD THEM TO SBL. DO NOT ADD THEM TO SURBL. > >Holy fsck guys! We have a good thing going here. We're put a >lot of work into it so far, and it's working pretty well. Let's >not tear apart the SURBL project, OK? > >Give me a chance to make some improvements in the next version >of the data engine. It will take into account resolved IPs >and get new domains onto the lists sooner. > ahahahahahha...lookout....he's gonna blow! :-) I didn't see the bigger picture here. Didn't know that SA devs have written it that way because SC already did this. Knowing now that SC already does this, I wouldn't want the extra work for SURBL. So...on this idea...your safe. One never knows what freaky idea I might come up with tomorrow ;) --Chris (Still ying to Jeff's yang!)

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] whitelist senderbase top domains?
by Chris Santerre 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 6:16 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] whitelist senderbase top domains? > > >On Friday, September 10, 2004, 3:09:35 AM, Alex Broens wrote: >> Jeff Chan wrote: >>> The >>> question is do these ISP' own domain names appear as >>> URIs in spams? > >> if you define 409's and all kinds of beggar-mail as >> spam/unsolicited/notrequested, yes... >> though I don't have any msgs to prove it right now... > >LOL I asked the wrong question too. The real question is >should we block all email that contains those ISPs' URIs? > >Should everyone who uses webmail to send a message from >hinet.net be blocked? I don't think so. AAAAAHHHH hinet and kornet are the scurge of my exhistence!!!!! I can't blacklist because our vendors use these. Bastards! :) Drives me insane I can't just firewall asia! Sorry for anybody here on the list from asia, but I'm sure you know why! Hell the whole PacRim could be bit bucketed for so many end users! They should make it an option when home users sign up for an account :) --Chris

2 1

test.surbl.org
by Leonardo Helman 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

Hi, Should I send this to spamassasin list? I've done some tests on mailscanner-spamcopuri-spamassasin, and the beast marks messages with spam uri correctly, but I couldn't make it report anything on: (I'm checking for 127.0.0.2) test.surbl.org (It consults only on surbl.org not on test.surbl.org) That's because it only checks the registered domain and not its subdomains? So if someone send me a mail with a http://spam.not-listed-as-spammer.com in it, it will not hit any surbl. Is this correct? host -t any test.surbl.org.multi.surbl.org reports: test.surbl.org.multi.surbl.org. text "multi.surbl.org permanent test point" test.surbl.org.multi.surbl.org. has address 127.0.0.2 Saludos -- Leonardo Helman Pert Consultores Argentina

4 6

Large ham corpus hits against SURBLs
by Jeff Chan 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

I've extracted the plaintext * URI domains from a 14 GB ham corpus, taken the top 70th and 85th percentiles of the most frequently occurring domains and compared them against all SURBL domains, the master list of which can be found at: http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/multi.domains.sort At the 70th percentile level, there were only two matches: automotivedigest.com processrequest.com At the 85th percentile there were a few more: automotivedigest.com chartshop.com ct002.com dakotaairparts.com hallogram.com infoaeroplan.ca investorsinsight.com processrequest.com sitepronews.com topachat.com These are arguably false positives. What do we know about them. Should we whitelist or not whitelist any? * looking at plaintext has advantages and disadvantages: 1. quick and easy 2. does not "double or triple count" messages which also have BASE 64 or quoted printable encoded versions of the same URIs 3. misses some such encoded URIs which don't have plaintext equivalents in a different part of the message Nonetheless the data are still probably generally useful. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

2 3

more FPs
by John Lundin 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

Finally got around to running geturi 0.5 on some recent submitted FPs and ham. I have permission to forward the original messages if needed. codefeed .com -0.2000 (1) gittigidiyor .com -0.2500 (1) The first, from a java newsletter blog ref, has no NANAS hits. Created Feb '03. I can't read the language on the second, from a quoted sig in a MySQL newsletter, but it has one NANAS hit and was created in Feb '00. Probably not controversial. destinationsite .com -3.0000 (1) ntcr .us -0.3333 (1) These two are. Both are from a Jupitermedia Web Events newsletter. And yes, the guy who submitted it signed up for 'em. I already asked. Both with netcreations RPs. First registered Jan '98, second Nov '03, so they aren't fly-by-night. (Crawl by night?) destinationsite has seventy-eight widely varied NANAS hits, and their web page redirects to postmasterdirect .com, describing them as, "The most trusted source of 100% opt-in email customer acquisition solutions." ntcr .us has forty-three less varied NANAS hits, site unviewable with my browser. (I sent the latter in once before for a DS hit, but it's in WS now.) And from personal email is a possibly worse pair... from a local linux UG newsletter that quotes a marketpro computer show flyer: emailfactory .com and emf0 .com (apparently same folks), being used as a web bug and unsub address, respectively. 183 and 22 NANAS, created oct '98 and feb '03. "Precision opt-in email marketing tools." Unfortunately, I know at least one other person who is (or was) subscribed to the mailing list for this show, which comes through here regularly. You choose if you want to hold your nose and remove 'em. And that's it out of 4991 messages checked, after removal of FFP's. Oh, yes, before I forget, a testimonial: Earlier this year a friend and I jointly built three computers, one of which is the box I'm writing this on. He did price comparisons on components. And one of his messages on the topic was flagged as spam. I checked, and one vendor site had been flagged by ws.surbl.org. Naturally, I suggested that the vendor in question wasn't a good choice. We ordered elsewhere. That correspondence just showed up in my corpora. Their site was still in WS, so I checked. Hmm. Web page down, what else? So I googled, and found that they were not merely spammy but had been fraudulent! So surbl saved me grief even outside of the email filtering. :-) Another use for a wonderful tool. -- lundin(a)cavtel.net "The chance of forgetting something is directly proportional to.. to.. uh.."

4 5

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss