Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1862 discussions

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: New SURBL additions
by Chris Santerre 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 4:55 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list; SpamAssassin Users List >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: New SURBL additions > > >On Friday, July 2, 2004, 6:06:16 AM, Don Newcomer wrote: >> Here are my counts since 6:50 PM yesterday for all URI_RBL >rules sorted by >> spam and ham: > >> URI_RBL spam counts: > >> 3577 - AB_URI_RBL (5.0) - surbl.cf >> 2499 - DS_URI_RBL (0.33) - surbl.cf >> 7282 - OB_URI_RBL (4.0) - surbl.cf >> 4279 - SPAMCOP_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf >> 5458 - WS_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf > >> URI_RBL ham counts: > >> 231 - DS_URI_RBL (0.33) - surbl.cf >> 18 - OB_URI_RBL (4.0) - surbl.cf >> 1 - SPAMCOP_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf >> 29 - WS_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf > >> Interesting that AB_URI_RBL has no false positives yet... Still, we >> haven't released spam filtering to our users yet so my Bayes >training is >> based pretty much on all of the SA rulesets' interpretation >of spam (which >> isn't necessarily a bad thing). > >Thanks much for the data Don, particularly the false positive >hits. Does anyone else have any to share? If so please post >them here. > >ab.surbl.org is based on SpamCop data plus some manual reports, >as is sc.surbl.org, but ab has a different inclusion criteria >of taking the top 500 most often reported (less www. duplicates >and whitelists hits) over 7 days, whereas sc has an arbitrary >inclusion threshold of 10 reports over 4 days. 1 FP for sc >is pretty good, though zero is better. :-) > >ob is pretty impressive in terms of hit rate and relatively >low FP rate, at least as a percentage of hits. > >Note that ds.surbl.org (based on 6dos data) is now up on 5 name >servers so it may be ok to use on production servers for beta >testing. > >Please note that I probably won't be able to check email for >about a week so hopefully others will help answer SURBL >questions, etc. > Please email me ANY FPs found in the ds.surbl.org list. I realy real realy want to clean it up. I'm working with the source to get it better. Even though the % isn't high. 99.99 percent accuracy is better ;) --Chris

1 0

Counts for all external SA tests for 6-30-04
by Bill Landry 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

Here are my numbers from yesterday for all external tests I run through SA: 7356 RCVD_IN_INTRUDERS 6868 RCVD_IN_DNSBL-T1 6595 RCVD_IN_BLARS 4897 RCVD_IN_FIVETEN 4788 RCVD_IN_SPAMHAUS 4458 DNS_FROM_MAILPOLICE-BLOCK 4285 RCVD_IN_AHBL 4259 RCVD_IN_AHBL-SPAM 4172 DS_URI_RBL 4099 DCC_CHECK 4056 RCVD_IN_SPAMCOP 3958 WS_URI_RBL 3854 RCVD_IN_SPEWS 3816 PYZOR_CHECK 3344 RCVD_IN_FIVETEN-SPAM 3247 RCVD_IN_CSMA-SBL 3023 DNS_FROM_AHBL-RHSBL 2994 RAZOR2_CHECK 2846 RCVD_IN_KROPKA 2436 RCVD_IN_INTERSIL 2413 DNS_FROM_NOABUSE 2313 OB_URI_RBL 2027 RCVD_IN_SORBS 1990 RCVD_IN_IPWHOIS 1852 RCVD_IN_LEADMON 1639 RCVD_IN_SPAMCANNIBAL 1497 DNS_FROM_NOPOSTMASTER 1418 DNS_FROM_SECURITY-SAGE 1392 RCVD_IN_BLARS-SPAM 1355 RCVD_IN_ANTISPAM 1350 RCVD_IN_NOMOREFUNN 1223 SC_URI_RBL 1132 RCVD_IN_SORBS-SPAM 1092 RCVD_IN_NJABL 957 RCVD_IN_NJABL-SPAM 799 RCVD_IN_SPAMBAG 744 RCVD_IN_NETHER-SPAM 711 RCVD_IN_THEY 556 RCVD_IN_FIVETEN-OPTIN 496 DNS_FROM_ISOC-RHSBL 496 DNS_FROM_DEADBEEF-RHSBL 496 DNS_FROM_BOGUSMX 496 DNS_FROM_BADWHOIS 484 RCVD_IN_KROPKA-DUL 459 RCVD_IN_SNARK 382 RCVD_IN_NOMOREFUNN-BOGUS 351 AB_URI_RBL 281 RCVD_IN_WEB-O-TRUST 275 RCVD_IN_SNARK-SPAM 226 DNS_FROM_NODSN 175 RCVD_IN_BRAINERD 162 RCVD_IN_SNARK-HONEYPOT 158 RCVD_IN_DSBL-ALL 145 RCVD_IN_DNSRBL-SPAM 124 RCVD_IN_NOMOREFUNN-SPAM 102 RCVD_IN_NETHER-WL 90 RCVD_IN_NETHER-RELAY 78 RCVD_IN_REDHAWK 71 DNS_FROM_ZONEEDIT 67 RCVD_IN_CYBERLOGIC 59 RCVD_IN_ABUSEAT 47 RCVD_IN_SORBS-DYNA 46 RCVD_IN_BSP-TRUSTED 46 RCVD_IN_BLARS-DUL 45 RCVD_IN_ARGENTINA 41 RCVD_IN_ISOC-IP4R 38 RCVD_IN_SPAMRBL 37 RCVD_IN_TFWL-IP4R 30 RCVD_IN_AUPADS-DUL 28 RCVD_IN_DEADBEEF-IP4R 26 RCVD_IN_DNSBL-INFO 24 RCVD_IN_SPAMSOURCE 24 RCVD_IN_SORBS-SOCKS 23 RCVD_IN_COMPLETEWHOIS 23 RCVD_IN_AHBL-PROXY 22 RCVD_IN_SNARK-NORDNS 22 RCVD_IN_RUSSIA 22 RCVD_IN_NJABL-PROXY 21 RCVD_IN_NOMOREFUNN-DYNA 21 RCVD_IN_CHINA 21 DNS_FROM_MAILPOLICE-DYNA 19 DNS_FROM_MAILPOLICE-DYNAMIC 17 RCVD_IN_SORBS-WEB 17 RCVD_IN_SORBS-HTTP 16 RCVD_IN_UCEB 16 RCVD_IN_NOMOREFUNN-PROXY 15 RCVD_IN_BLARS-MULTI 14 RCVD_IN_GWEEP-SDE 13 RCVD_IN_TFWL-RHSBL 12 RCVD_IN_SORBS-ZOMBIE 12 RCVD_IN_SCHULTE 12 RCVD_IN_KOREA 11 RCVD_IN_ORDB 11 RCVD_IN_BLITZED 10 RCVD_IN_RRBL 10 RCVD_IN_NIGERIA 9 RCVD_IN_JAPAN 9 RCVD_IN_HABEAS-USER 8 RCVD_IN_HONGKONG 8 RCVD_IN_FABEL 8 RCVD_IN_DNSRBL-DUN 7 RCVD_IN_WSFF 7 RCVD_IN_NJABL-DIALUP 6 RCVD_IN_VISI-RELAY 6 RCVD_IN_SORBS-MISC 6 RCVD_IN_NJABL-RELAY 5 RCVD_IN_KEMPTBL 5 RCVD_IN_BLITZED-SOCKS 4 RCVD_IN_BRAZIL 3 RCVD_IN_SINGAPORE 3 RCVD_IN_MALAYSIA 2 RCVD_IN_TURKEY 2 RCVD_IN_OSPAM 2 RCVD_IN_MEXICO 2 RCVD_IN_FIVETEN-MULTI 2 RCVD_IN_BSP-OTHER 2 RCVD_IN_BLITZED-WINGATE 2 RCVD_IN_BLITZED-HTTP-POST 1 RCVD_IN_THAILAND 1 RCVD_IN_TAIWAN 1 RCVD_IN_FIVETEN-OTHER As you can see, the SURBL tests stack up very nicely. I've stopped tracking FPs from the SURBL tests as the overall results of these tests have been very good. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank Jeff and the list creators and maintainers, as well as the DNS hosting providers, for their time and efforts in making this very valuable spam prevention service available to anyone who wishes to use it, it's very much appreciated. Keep up the good work! Bill

3 4

Re: New SURBL additions
by Jeff Chan 03 Jul '04

03 Jul '04

On Thursday, July 1, 2004, 11:47:37 AM, Don Newcomer wrote: > Hat's off to the folks who brought out the new SURBL checks! Here's my top > 15 rule hits over the past 20 hours and look where my 4 URIBLs come in: > 18832 - HTML_MESSAGE (0.100) - 50_scores.cf > 10296 - BAYES_99 (5.400) - 50_scores.cf > 9810 - OB_URI_RBL (4.0) - surbl.cf > 9403 - MIME_HTML_ONLY (0.320) - 50_scores.cf > 8367 - WS_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf > 7922 - CLICK_BELOW (0.100) - 50_scores.cf > 5220 - HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE (0.100) - 50_scores.cf > 5102 - SPAMCOP_URI_RBL (3.0) - surbl.cf > 4470 - MIME_MISSING_BOUNDARY (1.838) - 50_scores.cf > 4401 - MY_SHRT_IMG (0.848) - coding_html.cf > 4285 - MK_BAD_HTML_05 (0.3) - coding_html.cf > 4118 - NO_REAL_NAME (0.160) - 50_scores.cf > 4111 - AB_URI_RBL (5.0) - surbl.cf > 3887 - SARE_FROM_SPAM_WORD3 (0.100) - 70_sare_header.cf > 3678 - MIME_HTML_NO_CHARSET (0.561) - 50_scores.cf Thanks much for the data and the compliments Don! I'm forwarding your results to the SURBL discussion list. It's interesting to see how well ob is detecting spams. My hat is off in thanks to the OutBlaze folks for providing the data. Still looking for anyone's spam detection rates and false positive rates with all the lists: sc.surbl.org - SpamCop spamvertised sites ws.surbl.org - sa-blacklist, BigEvil and other data ob.surbl.org - OutBlaze spamvertised sites ab.surbl.org - AbuseButler spamvertised sites ds.surbl.org (beta, 6dos data) Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

4 5

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] uptilt.com and their customers probably not s pammers
by Chris Santerre 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 3:39 PM >To: 'SURBL Discussion list' >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] uptilt.com and their customers >probably not >s pammers > > >On Thursday, July 1, 2004, 6:51:32 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> -1 here > >> I think private is better. Public reports of FPs I am +1. > >OK To me FPs and whitelisting are the same thing, but it >sounds like if we did this you're saying it should be called >"FP reporting" and not "whitelist reporting". Am I interpreting >what you're saying correctly? > Yup. (I can be confusing sometimes.) Saying "Tell us who should be whitelisted." vs. "Did someone get marked incorrectly?" are different, yet the outcome is the same....sort of. If we never listed ebay, then no one will ever report ebay as an fp. CON: No proactive submissions. We may miss a popular domain. PRO: We don't get tons of whitelist submissions. Taking all our time checking them to see if they are legit instead of checking domains the should be added. --Chris

1 0

[SURBL-Discuss] uptilt.com and their customers probably not spammers
by Jeff Chan 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

I made a list of some of uptilt.com (emaillabs.com) customers': http://www.emaillabs.com/clientlist.html likely domains: http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/uptilt and checked those domains against all existing SURBLs. The only matches were: uptilt.com on ws.surbl.org, due to Chris' earlier manual listing, and: digitalimpact.com uptilt.com wordbiz.com on ds.surbl.org (6dos) which is a pretty low hit rate for nearly a hundred domains against a fairly aggressive list *if uptilt.com were a spamhaus*. It's not totally conclusive, but the relative lack of inclusion across multiple SURBL data sources leads me to think that uptilt.com is probably not a spamhaus. Therefore I've used that list of uptilt.com domains and customer domains as a whitelist. That means they will not be included in SURBLs. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

5 7

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] uptilt.com and their customers probably not s pammers
by Chris Santerre 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

-1 here I think private is better. Public reports of FPs I am +1. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 7:51 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] uptilt.com and their customers >probably not >spammers > > >On Thursday, July 1, 2004, 4:40:54 AM, David Hooton wrote: >> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 02:33:33 -0700, Jeff Chan <jeffc(a)surbl.org> wrote: >>> the relative lack of inclusion across multiple SURBL >>> data sources leads me to think that uptilt.com is probably >>> not a spamhaus. Therefore I've used that list of uptilt.com >>> domains and customer domains as a whitelist. That means they >>> will not be included in SURBLs. > >> Thanks for your super diligence, we all appreciate it, so do >our clients :) > >Thanks for your kind words David. As you can see I like to avoid >false positives. :-) > > >I'm strongly tempted to make a public form for submitting >whitelist entries, fully logged, rate-limited and reviewed, >of course. It could help with the FPs and add more public >visibility to the whitelisting process. > >Jeff C. > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

2 1

Fwd: Re: blacklist brings system to halt
by Jeff Chan 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

Here's some additional info on some of the recent sa-blacklist/ws.surbl.org/6dos goings on, copied from a message I sent to the SpamAssassin-users list: > 1477667 Jun 21 18:48 /etc/spamassassin/RulesDuJour/blacklist.cf.20040623-0106 > 421286 Jun 21 18:49 /etc/spamassassin/RulesDuJour/blacklist-uri.cf.20040623-0106 > 1459329 Jun 23 00:03 /etc/spamassassin/RulesDuJour/blacklist.cf.20040624-1602 > 415544 Jun 23 00:04 /etc/spamassassin/RulesDuJour/blacklist-uri.cf.20040624-1602 > 1484137 Jun 24 15:48 /etc/spamassassin/RulesDuJour/blacklist.cf.20040627-0301 > 422228 Jun 24 15:49 /etc/spamassassin/RulesDuJour/blacklist-uri.cf.20040627-0301 > 1559813 Jun 27 02:17 /etc/spamassassin/RulesDuJour/blacklist.cf.20040628-1544 > 443922 Jun 27 02:18 /etc/spamassassin/RulesDuJour/blacklist-uri.cf.20040628-1544 > 5432965 Jun 28 15:25 /etc/spamassassin/RulesDuJour/blacklist.cf.20040628-1558 > 1544207 Jun 28 15:28 /etc/spamassassin/blacklist-uri.cf > 7070231 Jun 28 15:54 /etc/spamassassin/blacklist.cf I think I can help explain why sa-blacklist went from 1.5 MB to 5.5 MB in size suddenly. Chris Santerre added a fairly large set of records from 6dos (6 degrees of spam) around that time in order to get the records into ws.surbl.org and sa-blacklist. Chris, Bill and I then discussed this and decided to take them back out of sa-blacklist and therefore ws.surbl.org, and put the 6dos entries into its own SURBL instead. However Bill's server experienced a hard disk problem around the same time so the entries have not come out of sa-blacklist yet. But they will come out once Chris gets access to Bill's server again. Until then, backing off to an earlier version of sa-blacklist makes perfect sense and it's what we've done for ws.surbl.org. When Chris gets in again, he will get the 6dos entries off sa-blacklist, it will come back down in size, and I'll restore live feeds of ws.surbl.org from the sa-blacklist data instead of freezing it at the older version, as it is now. Hopefully this makes some sense. If not I'll glady try to answer any questions or comments anyone has, though I'm not the original source of the changes. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

6 13

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] uptilt.com and their customers probably not s pammers
by Chris Santerre 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

They got on my list due to the tonyrobbins.com incedent. http://tinyurl.com/28xpc I that case I believe a "marketing company" was hired, who spammed for tonyrobbins.com. They are at least off-white in my mind. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 5:34 AM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] uptilt.com and their customers probably not >spammers > > >I made a list of some of uptilt.com (emaillabs.com) customers': > > http://www.emaillabs.com/clientlist.html > >likely domains: > > http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/uptilt > >and checked those domains against all existing SURBLs. >The only matches were: > > uptilt.com > >on ws.surbl.org, due to Chris' earlier manual listing, and: > > digitalimpact.com > uptilt.com > wordbiz.com > >on ds.surbl.org (6dos) which is a pretty low hit rate for >nearly a hundred domains against a fairly aggressive list >*if uptilt.com were a spamhaus*. It's not totally conclusive, >but the relative lack of inclusion across multiple SURBL >data sources leads me to think that uptilt.com is probably >not a spamhaus. Therefore I've used that list of uptilt.com >domains and customer domains as a whitelist. That means they >will not be included in SURBLs. > >Jeff C. >-- >Jeff Chan >mailto:jeffc@surbl.org >http://www.surbl.org/ > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

20 hours of 6DOS
by Mariano Absatz 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

Yesterday I activated ds.surbl.org in our local server for very few domains, so far, I got 54 hits, NO false positives. Regards. -- Mariano Absatz El Baby ---------------------------------------------------------- Asking if computers can think is like asking if submarines can swim.

3 3

[SURBL-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: procmail exited w/ EX_TEMPFAIL and stucked spamd processes
by Jeff Chan 30 Jun '04

30 Jun '04

This is a forwarded message From: Jeff Chan <jeffc(a)surbl.org> To: William Stearns <wstearns(a)pobox.com> Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2004, 8:45:52 AM Subject: : Re: procmail exited w/ EX_TEMPFAIL and stucked spamd processes ===8<==============Original message text=============== On Wednesday, June 30, 2004, 7:38:42 AM, William Stearns wrote: >> From: Damon McMahon <inst_karma(a)hotmail.com> >> Are you by chance using Bill Stearn's sa-blacklist? >> >> Same thing happened on my mail server yesterday - it almost ground to a >> halt, stalled procmail processes all over the place, sendmail errors >> identical to yours - very ugly. >> >> Eventually traced it down to the fact that the sa-blacklist.current had >> inadvertently quintupled (5x) in size overnight, from 1.5 to almost 7 MB in >> size. I use daily auto-updates of this list so hadn't noticed until the >> side-effects appeared. > Am I missing something? Please take a look at > http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/sa-blacklist.current.domains > - 23,752 domains, just > before Chris started adding 6dos. I relinked the last good one when I > brought the server back up. For generating ws.surbl.org, that's perfect, and I've re-enabled my getting of sa-blacklist.current.domains from your server. When Chris can get the 6dos data disabled, and you link back to an un-6dosed but otherwise current version, I think we will be fully functional again in terms of the ws.surbl.org generation process. I suppose you could rename the 6dos blacklist to disable it also. > If you're using my list, what version are you using? 200406281446 > should be a safe one to use. I was mainly referring to the folks using sa-blacklist as a cf file, which one of the versions apparently did get several times larger than before, presumably due to the inclusion of the 6dos data. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/ ===8<===========End of original message text===========

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