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.
--
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
[Joe asked me to forward this update. Thanks to everyone helping
out with the project!]
From: Jose Marcio Martins da Cruz
Date: Thursday, October 21, 2004, 8:13:46 AM
Subject: surbl update
Hello Jeff,
I've not enough time, at the moment, to participate on the list.
I have a set of scripts to gather URLs from the spam I receive
myself and from the spam on our postmaster mail box : around
5000 - 6000 messages a day.
It seems to me that SURBL response delay becomes better each
day.
When I begun using SURBL, I was usually able to add some tenths
of new URLs to surbl list. At the moment, I never add more than
five a day, and most of the time, only one or at most three.
It seems to me that this shows the excelent result of your work.
Thanks,
Joe
--
Jeff Chan
mailto:jeffc@surbl.org
http://www.surbl.org/
I've thought the exact same thing. I wish the lookup page would put the
added date and times. I realize that would be difficult, but man would
it be helpful.
Kris
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces(a)lists.surbl.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Chris Santerre
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:46 PM
To: 'SURBL Discussion list'
Subject: RE: [SURBL-Discuss] You guys are fast!
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net]
>Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:16 PM
>To: SURBL Discussion list
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] You guys are fast!
>
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>> I get submission marked as spam because someone has already
>added them to
>> SURBL! (I scan submission on purpose for this very reason.)
>Some of you guys
>> are mad fast at adding these ;)
>
>What one it was added to ? Just curious ;)
Dang I deleted three of them. One was childrenxxxxxxxx.com. Can't
remember
the xxxxxxxxxx.
Many a times I would love to see date and time added. Just to know when
they
got put in.
--Chris
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss(a)lists.surbl.org
http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Raymond Dijkxhoorn [mailto:raymond@prolocation.net]
>Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:16 PM
>To: SURBL Discussion list
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] You guys are fast!
>
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>> I get submission marked as spam because someone has already
>added them to
>> SURBL! (I scan submission on purpose for this very reason.)
>Some of you guys
>> are mad fast at adding these ;)
>
>What one it was added to ? Just curious ;)
Dang I deleted three of them. One was childrenxxxxxxxx.com. Can't remember
the xxxxxxxxxx.
Many a times I would love to see date and time added. Just to know when they
got put in.
--Chris
I get submission marked as spam because someone has already added them to
SURBL! (I scan submission on purpose for this very reason.) Some of you guys
are mad fast at adding these ;)
--Chris
>
>The remaining three which got whitelisted from your list are:
>
>coolestmail.com
>emailcorner.net
>messagingengine.com
>
>Thanks!
>
>Jeff C.
LOL see, and you thought I was a hardline blacklister! I swing both
ways......uh ...no, ......you know what I mean ;)
--Chris
(RED SOXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah!)
I was doing some research on kiddie pron. A bunch of whois email contact
info came up similar. veryfast.biz
So using our favorite set of utilities ;) , I found others linked to it.
Thinking they might have something to do with the huge whirling dirvish of
kiddie pron domains. It didn't appear that way. They appeared legit, but I
had a small doubt I could have been duped. Those kiddie pron guys are pretty
sly. But turns out they are whitehat, so I figured we should do a
pre-emptive white listing on them.
I don't think any of them were listed in an SURBL.
--Chris (!esruc eht esreveR)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 3:27 PM
>To: Chris Santerre
>Cc: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail)
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Recently whitelisted
>
>
>On Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 12:05:43 PM, Chris Santerre wrote:
>> In WS I have whitelisted the following thanks to responses
>from Steve C, and
>> Suresh. Jeff do you want to globally WL these?
>
>> 123mail.org
>> 150mail.com
>> 150ml.com
>[...]
>
>Thanks much!
>
>Yes, if they are good enough to whitelist out of the individual
>lists then we should whitelist them over all lists. I've added
>them to the master whitelist.
>
>I also added fastmail.fm; hope that's correct.
>
>Can you describe where these came from? Are they
>all from WS or also from OB; due to DMOZ hits or other?
>
>Jeff C.
>--
>"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steven Champeon [mailto:schampeo@hesketh.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 4:07 PM
>To: 'SURBL Discussion list'
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Recently whitelisted
>
>
>on Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 03:46:53PM -0400, Rob McEwen wrote:
>> Also, in case my terminology is not quite technically
>accurate... this is
>> what I meant:
>>
>> subdomains = subdomain.thatdomain.com
>
>This is one of those idiot-proof Web hosting naming conventions that I
>wish would just die. 'subdomain.thatdomain.com' is a
>/hostname/. It's not
Agree on the hostname.
>
>> subwebs = thatdomain.com/subweb
>
>Why not just call them URL paths? We used to refer to these as
>"subsites" back in the day, but technically they're just URL paths in
>this context as there's no sense of their being components
>with multiple
>pages under them or anything.
subsite works for me, even though it is just a path. Path or URL path just
sounds goofy :)
I still want to be able to list hosts in UC. But we just haven't gotten far
enough with UC to try any of this yet.
I'm hoping to find time to rewrite bigevil to find spammy things in URL
paths. Like:
www.xdomain.com/lolitateens/
scoring off the 'lolita'. But those closer to me know I got some HUGE stuff
coming up in my life, so I may not be able to get to this soon. Possibly
around thankgiving.
--Chris
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 9:26 PM
>To: SURBL Discussion list
>Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Possible new redir FP
>
>
>On Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 5:17:20 PM, Joe Wein wrote:
>>> get2.us
>
>> I saw that in our spam feed to but skipped blacklisting
>after checking the
>> site, as it looks like a redirector.
>
>> Instead I sent them email reporting the abuse and pointed
>out our open
>> letter to redirector sites.
>
>> Joe
>
>Excellent! Thanks Joe.
>
>I checked them out a little more and their site and name servers
>seem clean in terms of SBL, etc., including the parent domain
>ScriptWiz.com. The apparent owner of the sites seems to have
>several different sites, all pretty enterprising and apparently
>legitimate.
>
>I'm going to go ahead and whitelist all the redirection sites
>mentioned at:
>
> http://www.get2.us/start.php
>
>caught.us
>get2.us
>getto.us
>hasballs.com
>hated.us
>ismyidol.com
>spotted.us
>went2.us
>wentto.us
>
>None were whitelisted before, and only get2.us was listed in a
>SURBL.
>
>Feedback, good or bad, on any of these is still welcomed!
OK, hasballs.com is pretty funny ;)
--Chris