Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1862 discussions

ws updating again
by Jeff Chan 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

The problems with ws.surbl.org not updating for the past day or so have been corrected. It looks like there was a bug in the updated rsync or linux distro that Bill had installed on his server. When he reverted back to an earlier version, rsync started working correctly again. Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

1 0

abusebutler data back
by Jeff Chan 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

The ab.surbl.org data was missing for a few days while Andy Warner moved his AbuseButler colo server, but it's back up again, and AB is live again. Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] general questions.....
by Chris Santerre 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 5:38 AM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] general questions..... > > >On Thursday, November 18, 2004, 12:13:26 PM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> About 15% of the spams I get are not in SURBL, but are by >the time I try to >> add :) > >Ask Terry Sullivan sometime what the theoretical maximum >detection rate of a collective spam classification system might >be. He had some research showing it maxes out at around 85%. >So we're probably already pretty close to the theoretical >limits of this type of system. Me thinks I need to google for more data on this :) > >> I have not done any study of domains that continue to try to >spam despite >> being in SURBL. Any numbers on these? Possibly the >most/longest hit domain >> in SURBL lookups?? > >> SHould we post the top 25 lookups to SURBL? > >You mean like: > > http://www.surbl.org/dns-queries.blocklist.counts.txt > Perfect! This is what I mean, block port 80 (or all ports for that matter) for Hits Domain 1875 imgehost.com Hosted by Electric Lightwave, eli.net. Domain List matching dns_a of 67.50.118.130 48 total matches * 1: 123onlinecash.com * 2: 500fastcash.com * 3: absoluteroi.com * 4: americash-online.com * 5: azooimages.com * 6: camasterd.com * 7: cashadvancenow.com * 8: cashbackvalues.com * 9: cashbuzz.com * 10: cbvmasterd.com * 11: costamasterd.com * 12: cvcmasterd.com * 13: d1masterd.com * 14: dabogus.com * 15: directdepositcash.com * 16: efastcashloans.com * 17: egcmasterd.com * 18: epointmasterd.com * 19: equity1auto.com * 20: equityoneauto.com * 21: ezcash-online.com * 22: fast-funds-online.com * 23: fastcashandgas.com * 24: fastcashusa.com * 25: financialhosting.com * 26: hostimages.net * 27: imagedataserver.com * 28: imagesbyaz.com * 29: imgehost.com * 30: imgserver.net * 31: inamasterd.com * 32: lighteningcash.com * 33: mbcashmasterd.com * 34: mycash-online.com * 35: myonlinepayday.com * 36: oledirect.com * 37: oledirect2.com * 38: oneclickcash.com * 39: paydaycity.com * 40: pclmasterd.com * 41: ptymasterd.com * 42: sellingsource.com * 43: smartshopperonline.com * 44: steaksofstlouis.com * 45: tpmasterd.com * 46: webfastcash.com * 47: xenlog.com * 48: yourfastcash.com By blocking port 80 (or all) at the firewall for this IP address, you don't have to worry about them getting new domain names. Only the worst cases should be blocked. If you have 48 spam domains on one host, you suck as an ISP :) I seriously would like to hear the ISP's argument for being unblocked on this one. --Chris

3 4

Phishing attempt
by Mariano Absatz 23 Nov '04

23 Nov '04

Hi David et al. for some reason my Thunderbird severed the topmost headers (including trace headers) for this message (see bottom) I got this weekend. However, it seems to me it's a phishing attempt from 210.127.248.68... the page doesn't seem to be up, anyway. Checking in http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi the address only hit sc. Regards. -- Mariano Absatz - El Baby el (dot) baby (AT) gmail (dot) com el (punto) baby (ARROBA:@) gmail (punto) com From: "SunTrust Access Review" <holdaccount0115nf93797(a)suntrust.com> To: <baby(a)baby.com.ar> Subject: Banking Online Message IDXXX003014585815 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 02:12:23 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal <html> <head> <title>SunTrust Account Access</title> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-= 1"> </head> <body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000"> <table width=3D"940" border=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0"> <tr> <td colspan=3D"2" height=3D"66" valign=3D"top"><img src=3D"http://www.r= ogueweb.com/logo_home.gif" width=3D"171" height=3D"66"></td> <td width=3D"562"></td> <td width=3D"107"></td> </tr> <tr> <td height=3D"9" width=3D"26"></td> <td width=3D"245"></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td height=3D"176"></td> <td colspan=3D"2" valign=3D"top"> Dear Valued Customer, SunTrust Banks Inc., is committed to maintaining a safe environme= nt for our customers. To protect the security of your account, SunTrus= t Banks Inc., employs some of the most advanced security systems in the wor= ld and our anti-fraud teams regularly screen the SunTrust system for u= nusual activity. We are contacting you to remind you that on Nov. 17, 2004 our Acco= unt Review Team identified some unusual activity in your account. In ac= cordance with SunTrust's User Agreement and to ensure that your account has = not been compromised, access to your account was limited. Your account = access will remain limited until this issue has been resolved. We encourage you to log in and perform the steps necessary to rest= ore your account access as soon as possible. Allowing your account acce= ss to remain limited for an extended period of time may result in furt= her limitations on the use of your account and possible account closure= . Click here to unlock your <a href=3D"http://210.127.248.68/personal/check= ing/OnlineBanking/Internet_Banking/index.php">online access.</a> </td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td height=3D"26"></td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td height=3D"95"></td> <td colspan=3D"2" valign=3D"top"> Thank you for your prompt attention t= o this matter. Please understand that this is a security measure meant to he= lp protect you and your account. We apologize for any inconvenience. Sincerely, Suntrust Banks Inc., Account Review Department </td> <td></td> </tr> <tr> <td height=3D"18"></td> <td></td> <td></td> <td></td> </tr> </table> </body> </html>

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] general questions.....
by Chris Santerre 22 Nov '04

22 Nov '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: David B Funk [mailto:dbfunk@engineering.uiowa.edu] >Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 12:31 AM >To: surbl(a)alexb.ch; SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] general questions..... > > >On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Alex Broens wrote: > >> Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) wrote: >> >>Have any of you seen fewer spams? I don't see many these days. >> > >> > >> > Chris, >> > >> > Overall, I'm getting less and less spam. I think that >SURBL is getting better, some graymarketers are cleaning up >their acts, and my rules-based filering is also improving. >> > >> > However, a few days ago, I started getting slammed with >mortgage spam using the following domains: >> > >> > dalehaym.biz >> >> This I sent to SURBL on 2004-11-16 09:11:10 GMT +1 >> Why it never made it to the list is above me. >> >> Alex > >I think that something is wrong with the WS-surbl feed. >None of the entries that I've submitted in the past few days >have shown up in the ws.surbl list, usually they're posted >in less than an hour. > Actually thre is still a slight problem. One of the contributors on the submission list is swamped with work, and away from keyboard. We are having some technical issues removing him from the submission list. So he got a bunch that never got added. He forwarded them to me today. I will go thru. We are hoping to fix the problem soon. --Chris

1 0

general questions.....
by Chris Santerre 21 Nov '04

21 Nov '04

Have any of you seen fewer spams? I don't see many these days. About 15% of the spams I get are not in SURBL, but are by the time I try to add :) I have not done any study of domains that continue to try to spam despite being in SURBL. Any numbers on these? Possibly the most/longest hit domain in SURBL lookups?? SHould we post the top 25 lookups to SURBL? This way people can look at maybe denying these by IP at firewall? --Chris (I am an anal-retentive and highly-clueful well-motivated maniac.) ;)

6 6

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] general questions.....
by Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) 20 Nov '04

20 Nov '04

> Have any of you seen fewer spams? I don't see many these days. Chris, Overall, I'm getting less and less spam. I think that SURBL is getting better, some graymarketers are cleaning up their acts, and my rules-based filering is also improving. However, a few days ago, I started getting slammed with mortgage spam using the following domains: dalehaym.biz dalehay.biz daleqhay.biz damphenm.biz darbherm.biz darbhero.biz darbkher.biz rbkher.biz (& others) An example spam is found here: http://www.pvsys.com/recentspamsample.txt In this example, the domain is: darbherm.biz ...but darbherm.biz doesn't resolve to anything. However, usa.darbherm.biz DOES resolve. (Of course, you have to go to the actual URL to get to a substantive page... see actual e-mail). (1) Could the fact that the baseline domain doesn't resolve have tricked us into thinking that these were no longer active? (2) Also, in a not-quite-applicable but related thought, should we rethink the policies for removing "dead" domains out of SURBL if they STILL appear in spams. For example, suppose a virus sends out the same spam for a now defunct domain over and over again... shouldn't such a domain STILL be listed in SURBL? Finally, maybe these particular domains I listed at the top of this message are not in SURBL because of having legit uses? But I must say that this particular "series" of spam came all of a sudden and ferociously frequent. For example, a couple of my clients would be getting at least a couple of dozen of these SAME e-mails **per day** if I hadn't adjusted my rules based filter to screen these out. Clearly, this kind of behavior where the spam is sent repeatedly each day is NOT playing by the rules. Rob McEwen

4 3

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] general questions.....
by Chris Santerre 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:50 AM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] general questions..... > > >On Friday, November 19, 2004, 6:39:31 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >>>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] > >>>> I have not done any study of domains that continue to try to >>>spam despite >>>> being in SURBL. Any numbers on these? Possibly the >>>most/longest hit domain >>>> in SURBL lookups?? >>> >>>> SHould we post the top 25 lookups to SURBL? >>> >>>You mean like: >>> >>> http://www.surbl.org/dns-queries.blocklist.counts.txt >>> > >> Perfect! This is what I mean, block port 80 (or all ports >for that matter) >> for > >> Hits Domain >> 1875 imgehost.com > >> Hosted by Electric Lightwave, eli.net. > >> Domain List matching dns_a of 67.50.118.130 >> 48 total matches > >> * 1: 123onlinecash.com >> * 2: 500fastcash.com >[...] > >Uh, but that won't block the spam.... > This one is a reply to Rob as well. No, I'm thinking outside our 'norm'. This is not the sending IP. This is the hosting IP. You are correct in saying this will not stop spam coming. Unless SA starts to tag by looking up the IP of the URL. Which a certain ninja has been working on ;) This will stop any ads from showing up in the spam. This will allow others to black this so there users don't click on the junk being spamed. This will also say to ISPs, "Clean up your act, or no one will pay to be hosted by you anymore!". Its more an offensive strike against spam, rather then always being defensive. --Chris

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] general questions.....
by Chris Santerre 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

Oh....I meant deny port 80. Not MX. Sorry. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) [mailto:rob@powerviewsystems.com] >Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:27 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: RE: [SURBL-Discuss] general questions..... > >maybe denying these by IP at firewall? Also, the IP address of the sending server is NOT necessarily the IP address of the NameServer the domain is assigned to. (Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you altogether) Also... I don't mean to be so negative... certainly, this is the kind of brainstorming that leads to great ideas. I'm just double-checking your ideas :) Rob McEwen _______________

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] general questions.....
by Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) 19 Nov '04

19 Nov '04

> Hits Domain > 1875 imgehost.com > Hosted by Electric Lightwave, eli.net. > Domain List matching dns_a of > 48 total matches Chris, Just to help me understand you better, is the actual **sending server** for these particular spams always (or even mostly) "67.50.118.130" when looking at "real world" data? The reason that I ask is because the sending server is not necessarily the same server/IP as the IP address that the domain name itself resolves to. This is important because the sending server's IP is what gets checked with regular RBL blocking. Rob McEwen

1 0

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