Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1862 discussions

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] cdbaby.com fp whitelisted
by Chris Santerre 18 Aug '04

18 Aug '04

I submitted from Ryan's submission. But I did check it and it looked spammy. Also had a bunch of NANAS hits, and not just one. I see a pattern of legit sites possibly being con'd by sleezy marketers. Causing them to be listed. It will probably happen in the future despite our best efforts. We can minimise of course. But if the domain is unfamiliar, looks kind of spammy (cdbaby, come one now!), has multiple NANAS or NANAE hits, is reported to be spamming, then most likely it will get listed. I had no doubts when I listed this. I'm still only going by what Jeff has said. But I don't go by what companies quote on there website. Everything Jeff quoted I've seen before on known spam sites. If a site has multiple reports on NANAS, from different people, over a stretch of time, then you bet it sends red flags up for me! I removed then and will update file. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 6:08 PM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] cdbaby.com fp whitelisted > > >cdbaby.com was on ws. I've whitelisted it along with a couple >others: > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] FP in ws.surbl.org domeus_REMOVE.com /domeus_REMOVE.es
by Jeff Chan 18 Aug '04

18 Aug '04

On Wednesday, August 18, 2004, 12:14:26 AM, Joe Wein wrote: >> Thanks, I've whitelisted: >> >> domeus.com >> domeus.es > Could you whitelist domeus.de also, just in case. I run a mailing list on > that service. > They are rumoured to have some problems, but basically are legitimate. Thanks, I've whitelisted the domains on their main page: ecircle-ag.com domeus.com domeus.de domeus.co.uk domeus.es domeus.fr domeus.it Jeff C.

1 0

FP from WS
by Larry Rosenman 18 Aug '04

18 Aug '04

The following 2 URIs (and possibly a third) are FP's: i-say-MUNGED.com Surveynetworks-MUNGED.com And possibly Itracks-MUNGED.com i-say-MUNGED is the IPSOS survey site, and seems legit, and surveynetworks-MUNGED Is a collection of them. I'm not 100% certain of itracks-MUNGED, but please check. These are all on WS. -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler(a)lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749

5 10

[SURBL-Discuss] FP in ws.surbl.org domeus_REMOVE.com / domeus_REMOVE.es
by Mariano Absatz 18 Aug '04

18 Aug '04

Hi people, hi Bill... I just detected a FP in ws.surbl.org... and I was the one who submitted the domains :-( It's 2 domains: domeus_REMOVE.com / domeus_REMOVE.es It seems to be some kind of public list server with little control about what their users/customers subscribe. I'll look in my spamcan for the offending messages and will try to contact them to see if they do something about those customers. But I got the FP from a message forwarded from a completely legit mailing list, so I guess our policy should lead us to remove those domains from the list. I'll see what I can do tomorrow... I'm finishing putting in production MailScanner+SpamAssassin+SURBL in a mid-sized ISP... it's 3:00 AM, I haven't slept a wink, I broke a leg last week and my Doctor insists on opening it before this weekend to get the bone nailed in place... I won't be able to walk on my feet for a month and a half :-( Regards. -- Mariano Absatz - El Baby el (dot) baby (AT) gmail (dot) com el (punto) baby (ARROBA:@) gmail (punto) com

3 2

ya.com likely FP in WS
by Patrik Nilsson 18 Aug '04

18 Aug '04

ya.com is listed in WS. I can't find any recent NANAS reports where the domain is used in uri's. They seem to be an ISP, with the domain showing up in footers in legit mail when their webmail service is used. Patrik

4 5

cdbaby.com fp whitelisted
by Jeff Chan 18 Aug '04

18 Aug '04

cdbaby.com was on ws. I've whitelisted it along with a couple others: cdbaby.com hostbaby.com hitmedia.com This site claims to be the largest seller of independent musician CDs on the web: http://www.cdbaby.com/about > * In business, and thriving, since March 1998. We're the > largest seller of independent CDs on the web. [...] > Current Numbers: > > * 69,591 artists sell their CD at CD Baby. > * 1,129,709 CDs sold online to customers. > * $9,041,358.43 paid to artists. > > CD Baby Privacy Policy > > * We NEVER give or sell your personal info to any other > company - EVER! (No not even your email address!) > * Only the musician whose CD you buy will know who you are. > * If you don't even want the musician to know about you, > just say so at the bottom of your order form. There's no way this domain should ever have been listed, even if one of the artists using it DID spam. ws folks please trace this one back. We don't want more like this. Is anyone researching these before they get added? Even a cursory glance at their web page would show them to probably be legitimate. We really need to try to eliminate FPs or they will hurt the project. Jeff C.

2 3

Donation button added
by Jeff Chan 18 Aug '04

18 Aug '04

Raymond had suggested it while ago, but I've added a donation button to the SURBL site. Hope that's ok with everyone. (Of course it's all voluntary.) The account is my personal one since SURBL doesn't really have a business entity. We would use any donations to pay for bandwidth, hosting or other expenses that come up, perhaps including setting up an additional data server at a new location elsewhere in the world for some extra redundancy. Jeff C.

1 0

cdbaby.com fp whitelisted
by Jeff Chan 17 Aug '04

17 Aug '04

cdbaby.com was on ws. I've whitelisted it along with a couple others:

1 0

surbl.org website down?
by Martin 17 Aug '04

17 Aug '04

Is it jst me or is the surbl.org website down? / Martin

3 11

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] surbl.org website down?
by daveb＠esat.net 17 Aug '04

17 Aug '04

Martin wrote: > >Jeff Chan wrote: > >> Comes up fine for me, but it could be intermittent DNS timeouts >> due to BIND being slow reloading. I'm changing my server over >> to rbldnsd and encouraging other of the public SURBL name >> servers to do likewise, but some are not converted over yet. >> I believe running rbldnsd will help a lot. > >Jeff, > >Alright, but it seems like i can't find the host at all: > >traceroute www.surbl.org >traceroute: unknown host www.surbl.org > >Anyone else from sweden experiencing the same problem? I think it's to do with which nameserver you get back. I noticed when I switched mine to rbldnsd that other day that I was unable to resolve www.surbl.org from it anymore... dave@pagh:~$ dig version.bind chaos txt @ns16.surbl.org +short "rbldnsd" dave@pagh:~$ dig a www.surbl.org @ns16.surbl.org +short dave@pagh:~$ dig version.bind chaos txt @ns14.surbl.org +short "rbldnsd 0.992 (7 Mar 2004)" dave@pagh:~$ dig a www.surbl.org @ns14.surbl.org +short dave@pagh:~$ dig version.bind chaos txt @ns13.surbl.org +short "8.3.7-REL" dave@pagh:~$ dig a www.surbl.org @ns13.surbl.org +short 66.170.2.60 As you can see, ns16 & ns14 won't give you an A record back, but ns13 will. This also affects what my nameservers will cache .... daveb@bilbo:~$ dig a www.surbl.org @ns4.ns.esat.net +short daveb@bilbo:~$ dig a www.surbl.org @ns5.ns.esat.net +short 66.170.2.60 daveb@bilbo:~$ traceroute www.surbl.org traceroute: unknown host www.surbl.org Both servers are identical, yet one can resolve it, and one can't. I'm not sure what the solution should be, but it will only get worse as more clients migrate rbldnsd IMHO. Dave

3 14

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