Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1 participants
1864 discussions

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

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