Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1 participants
1864 discussions

SURBL meeting at Linuxworld expo in Boston?
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

I know its early, but if I don't schedule early, I may never get the chance to. LinuxWorldexpo.com is Feb 14-17 in Boston, MA. Any hope of having a mini SURBL/SARE meeting? Just to meet face to face. 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

6 6

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: jm(a)jmason.org [mailto:jm@jmason.org] >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 3:49 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Cc: csanterre(a)merchantsoverseas.com >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > >Matthew Wilson writes: >> Folks, >> >> If I were a spammer monitoring this list's traffic (there >have got to be >> some), I would buy up a bunch of domains that were registered a few >> years ago but expired, throw up a bunch of bogus "legitimate looking" >> content, > >yep, the google-spammers are doing that already. > >> send out a bunch of spam using those "legitimate" domain names, >> and then complain to Jeff et al. that SURBL is generating false >> positives. According to current policies, my sites would be >> whitelisted, "yay!". > >this is a possible problem, alright. But as far as I can see Jeff >has been saying to *check* the possible false positive domains, not >to just blindly whitelist them. And we do check them. Find that they have in the past, and currently host a BUNCH of spam. But they get one legit use. So they get whitelisted on WS, according to the policy. So I follow the policy of WS. Only choice is to submit this stuff to a list with a different policy. --Chris

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

There is such a list being worked on called UC. I haven't been putting much effort into it as much as WS. But that is about to change very soon. And I COMPLETELY agree with your example. More then you know. And I can't in good concience let that happen. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew Wilson [mailto:matthew@boomer.com] >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 3:25 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Cc: csanterre(a)merchantsoverseas.com >Subject: RE: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com > > >Folks, > >If I were a spammer monitoring this list's traffic (there have >got to be >some), I would buy up a bunch of domains that were registered a few >years ago but expired, throw up a bunch of bogus "legitimate looking" >content, send out a bunch of spam using those "legitimate" >domain names, >and then complain to Jeff et al. that SURBL is generating false >positives. According to current policies, my sites would be >whitelisted, "yay!". > >It's my opinion that you have to draw the line somewhere because of >this, and hosting entities who don't have compliant AUPs or enforce >their AUPs with any speed need to be listed somehow. > >Jeff, you really should consider creating a separate "semi-legitimate" >list for entities such as greatnow.com, if only to appease those of us >who don't necessarily keep often-updated private blacklists and >whitelists for SURBL queries/hits. > >Thanks, >Matthew Wilson. > >-----Original Message----- >From: discuss-bounces(a)lists.surbl.org >[mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Chan >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 1:29 PM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com > >On Friday, October 22, 2004, 11:27:25 AM, Jeff Chan wrote: >> There's a difference between removing the entire list and checking >> them carefully before using them. > >> We can use the data if we check it first. > >Can you post or link the list so we can all see the data and comment on >it? > >Jeff C. >-- >"If it appears in hams, then don't list it." > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > >

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] SURBL meeting at Linuxworld expo in Boston?
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

LOL I was on my way up last Jan, when my car froze up by the MA line! Going to check my antifreeze BEFORE I go this year. So I hope to be at both. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:felicity@kluge.net] >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:28 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] SURBL meeting at Linuxworld expo >in Boston? > > >On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:43:56AM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote: >> LinuxWorldexpo.com is Feb 14-17 in Boston, MA. Any hope of >having a mini >> SURBL/SARE meeting? Just to meet face to face. > >There's (probably) also the Spam Conference at MIT in January >(it's always a >last minute thing). Hey, it was only -7 degrees last year... ;) > >I wasn't planning to goto LWE, but I'd be likely to swing by to meet >folks if there's enough people going. > >-- >Randomly Generated Tagline: >"Fuel gauges seem to be difficult to design. For example, the FAA > requires aircraft fuel gauges to be accurate at one point only, when > showing EMPTY. When I am 10,000 feet in the air and the tank >is empty on > my single engine plane, I have very obvious indication that >it is empty. > The sudden quiet is the loudest sound you will ever hear!" - Al Hodges >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

gone. >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:14 PM >To: Chris Santerre >Cc: 'Jeff Chan'; SURBL Discussion list (E-mail) >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com > > >On Friday, October 22, 2004, 11:00:56 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> I thought we had a discussion on this already? The list I >added has been in >> there for like 2 months. I went thru it. I do NOT use this >guys list nilly >> willy. I haven't updated that file in 2 months. I only took >his 100 recent >> changes, and went thru it and pulled a bunch out that were >in question. > >> So the original file was looked thru by me and never >changed. And only 80 or >> so were added out of the 100 latest updated. I probably >won't look at this >> again for another 2 months as it takes a while to go thru them. > >> I don't add anything blindly. I don't want FPs either. > >> Why, is greatnow.com being listed a problem? > >Because it had a mention in a ham, which you got cc'ed on. >It was about bluetooth code hosted at greatnow.com. > >Here are some more possible FPs from that list, based >on DMOZ hits (they're not all FPs, but some are): > > http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/check-ws-dmoz.txt > >/home/gorilla/black-gorilla-9_7_04_SCblog.txt in nouse-white-jeffc-dmoz Snip

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

I thought we had a discussion on this already? The list I added has been in there for like 2 months. I went thru it. I do NOT use this guys list nilly willy. I haven't updated that file in 2 months. I only took his 100 recent changes, and went thru it and pulled a bunch out that were in question. So the original file was looked thru by me and never changed. And only 80 or so were added out of the 100 latest updated. I probably won't look at this again for another 2 months as it takes a while to go thru them. I don't add anything blindly. I don't want FPs either. Why, is greatnow.com being listed a problem? "Talk to me Goose!" --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 1:39 PM >To: Chris Santerre >Cc: 'SURBL Discussion list' >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com > > >On Friday, October 22, 2004, 7:21:56 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> Thanks, I'll add his last 100 changes as well. > >> --Chris > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Steven Champeon [mailto:schampeo@hesketh.com] >>>Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:01 AM >>>To: 'SURBL Discussion list' >>>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com >>> >>> >>> >>>Yep - confirmed. 'greatnow.com' is listed. >>> >>>http://www.jayallen.org/comment_spam/blacklist.txt > >I really think we should discuss AND TEST adding new data sources >before adding them to WS or any other list. There seem to be >a lot of FPs in this blog list. > >If we don't discuss and test these first, I may just remove them >from WS. > >Jeff C. >-- >"If it appears in hams, then don't list it." >

2 2

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

These are the only hits you had listed from that list of blog sites: da.ru home.ro it.tt netfirms.com sexushost.com xfreehosting.com I wouldn't consider this a 'new' source either. The source is still me. I'm responsible for checking them and adding. If there is an FP it is my fault. I will remove these from the original file. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 1:39 PM >To: Chris Santerre >Cc: 'SURBL Discussion list' >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com > > >On Friday, October 22, 2004, 7:21:56 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> Thanks, I'll add his last 100 changes as well. > >> --Chris > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Steven Champeon [mailto:schampeo@hesketh.com] >>>Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:01 AM >>>To: 'SURBL Discussion list' >>>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com >>> >>> >>> >>>Yep - confirmed. 'greatnow.com' is listed. >>> >>>http://www.jayallen.org/comment_spam/blacklist.txt > >I really think we should discuss AND TEST adding new data sources >before adding them to WS or any other list. There seem to be >a lot of FPs in this blog list. > >If we don't discuss and test these first, I may just remove them >from WS. > >Jeff C. >-- >"If it appears in hams, then don't list it." >

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

Thanks, I'll add his last 100 changes as well. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Steven Champeon [mailto:schampeo@hesketh.com] >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:01 AM >To: 'SURBL Discussion list' >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com > > > >Yep - confirmed. 'greatnow.com' is listed. > >http://www.jayallen.org/comment_spam/blacklist.txt > >-- >join us! http://hesketh.com/about/careers/web_designer.html > join us! >hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com join us! http://hesketh.com/about/careers/account_manager.html join us! _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com
by Chris Santerre 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

I sent you info on the whitelist list. HUGE spam host for blog spammers. HUGE! They don't care who the heck they host for as long as they have money. I gave you quite a good list of examples. Greatnow.com needs to stay forever listed. They are scumbags. Large ones at that, not the fly by night ones. They just don't fit withn the normal radar we look at for SURBL. Steve C originaly gave me the submission. You will notice the file name they hit on contains 'blog'. You can look at some of the outright damage this domain has done to people's blogs around the web. --Chris >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 5:34 AM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] free host: greatnow.com > > >On Friday, October 22, 2004, 12:10:38 AM, Jeff Chan wrote: >> Got an FP report about greatnow.com, an apparent free hosting >> company. Based on DMOZ hits, they seem to have some legitimate >> uses. They also have a few NANAS hits. They are not in SBL. >> They probably have some minor abuse. > >> Does anyone know anything more about them? > >> Source is: > >> /home/gorilla/black-gorilla-9_7_04_SCblog.txt:greatnow.com > >> Jeff C. > >Since this domain appears to have legitimate uses, I went >ahead and whitelisted them. Chris if you get a chance, >please review and see why we listed them originally. > >Thanks, > >Jeff C. >-- >"If it appears in hams, then don't list it." > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org >http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >

2 2

Strategies for killing abusive glue records
by Andy Warner 22 Oct '04

22 Oct '04

Has anybody on the list found a good strategy for getting registrars to terminate name server glue records that are widely used to provide name service to spamvertised domains. (i.e. ns1.fast111.biz) I've had good luck with a few registrars (Joker, GoDaddy), but at most, I'm running to a brick wall. Either the abuse folks are not empowered to remove glue records or they don't even know what a glue record is. It is scary how many folks who work for registrars think REGISTRAR-HOLD status will kill the glue records too when it only prevents the name servers from that domain being published to the roots in association with the domain in question). As it can be fairly time consuming to build a good case for killing a glue record, I wanted to see if other folks were working on this and if anybody might be having better luck. -- Andy Warner andy(a)andy.net

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