Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1 participants
1864 discussions

Possible new redir FP
by Chris Santerre 20 Oct '04

20 Oct '04

get2.us listed in SC. Looks like a redir. Could be spam friendly. Great candidate for UC, but I'm suggesting Whitelisting for the rest. Thoughts? DOn't ask me if it appears in ham. Because I don't know. 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

3 3

Fwd: Re: mailpolice point of contact
by Jeff Chan 19 Oct '04

19 Oct '04

Since Chris asked the question here too, here's what Bill found. Jeff C. __ This is a forwarded message From: Bill Landry <billl(a)pointshare.com> To: "Chris" <cpollock(a)earthlink.net>, users(a)spamassassin.apache.org Date: Monday, October 18, 2004, 9:01:43 PM Subject: mailpolice point of contact ===8<==============Original message text=============== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris" <cpollock(a)earthlink.net> > > > Does anyone know of a POC to report phishing msgs that the > > > mailpolice rbl misses? > > > > I sent an e-mail to a contact at MP to see who these could be sent to. > > You can also forward them to postmaster(a)corp.mailsecurity.net.au, which > > will get them listed on the SURBL phishing list. > > Thanks Bill, I'll give that a try, can't seem to get the > http//:rhs.mailpolice.com page to load, I'll run their ip through > whois and see if I have any luck. I already report all phishing to > postmaster(a)corp.mailsecurity.net.au, > reportphishing(a)antiphishing.org but seems like the mailpolice > list is lacking quit a bit in tagging phishing msgs. Chris, I heard back from MP, and was advised to go ahead and send these to spam(a)mailpolice.com. Bill ===8<===========End of original message text===========

1 0

Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Took top percentiles of DMOZ and wikipedia domains, some results
by Jeff Chan 19 Oct '04

19 Oct '04

On Saturday, October 16, 2004, 7:08:01 PM, David Funk wrote: > On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Jeff Chan wrote: >> Thanks Dave, >> www.xiloo comes up for me but efriend.xiloo does not. >> Perhaps they took down a spammer's site? If so that >> could be good. >> >> But mainly I can't tell what the main site is since I >> can't read Chinese. It looks like a portal, but it's >> just a guess. And given that they seem to host multiple >> customer sites, perhaps we can assume they do hosting >> also. > Actually I don't read Chinese either. I use our local Chinese > grad student population for translation assistance in these > cases. I'm on the road for the next 4 days, I can get you > a 'read' on the main site when I get back. > Dave FWIW Spamhaus thinks xiloo.com is a spammer: http://www.spamhaus.org/SBL/sbl.lasso?query=SBL14687 > Ref: SBL14687 > > 219.235.232.0/24 is listed on the Spamhaus Block List (SBL) > > 02-Jun-2004 06:05 GMT | SR02 > > dns6.xilu.com Spamhaus does not have the same inclusion criteria we do, but it can be a useful data point. Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Theory about FPs for sites with open subscrip tions
by Chris Santerre 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 10:31 AM >To: 'SURBL Discussion list' >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Theory about FPs for sites with open >subscriptions > > >On Saturday, October 16, 2004, 6:57:56 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: >> Recently, a high-profile news web site (ranked about 1,500 >on alexa.com) had >> the IP address of the server sending their newsletters blocked by >> bl.spamcop.net > >> I contacted someone from SpamCop and they mentioned that, upon >> investigation, this site had an "open loop" newsletter subscription. > >> Recognizing that open loop subscriptions is a bad policy... >this is one of >> the reasons that, IMHO, SpamCop's RBL is much too aggressive >to use for >> all-or-none, "yes/no" blocking. (Though I do use it for auditing.) > >> More importantly, I hope that this kind of stuff does NOT >**automatically** >> get propagated from SpamCop to SURBL? (Though I'm largely >unfamiliar with >> this process.) > >The SpamCop RBL and our use of SpamCop's Spmavertised site data >are totally unconnected, aside from using some of the same >reports as input data. Their BL policies have no effect on >our sc.surbl.org policies. > >The problem with these open subscriptions getting onto SURBLs >is happening on OB, the Outblaze spamtrap SURBL, and WS, the >manual and some spamtrap SURBL. That, plus some looking at >the NANAS reports leads me to think some spamtraps may be >getting poisoned with these open subscription domains. The >poisoning may be deliberate or unintentional, with good >intentions or bad, but either way most of these open >subscription sites should not be getting onto our lists since >many have otherwise legitimate uses. > >Obviously open subscriptions are an extremely poor practice >and open for abuse, but that alone should not be a reason >to get listed in a SURBL, especially for otherwise legitimate >industrial/engineering/child protection sites, etc. > Perhaps it may be time for WS to have its own spamtraps? Most of you might already have them. I don't use any. Only what comes into my company. However a few "one time" aliases that were made for business reasons, I haven't deleted and they are starting to get spam. I just think we might be able to get some nice clean data with some nice new spamtraps for WS. Thoughts? --Chris

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Removal of original BE domains from WS.
by Chris Santerre 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Daniel Kleinsinger [mailto:danielk@avalonpub.com] >Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 1:14 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Removal of original BE domains from WS. > > >Jeff Chan wrote: > >>Hopefully that will decrease the FPs in WS, though there is still >>work to do if we're serious about reducing FPs. >> >I don't want to say too much (cause I don't really know what >I'm talking >about!), but back in the day of separate cf files, it wasn't >bigevil.cf >that gave me FPs, it was sa-blacklist.cf. When they were separate I >didn't actually use sa-blacklist because of the FPs. Too be honest, I >wasn't too pleased when bigevil started to exist only as the WS surbl >because of the sa-blacklist FPs. > >What I'm saying may be totally off base, but if you're looking for FPs >to remove, how about checking the sa-blacklist stuff that's still in >WS? Does that even make sense? > THANKS!! I love you to! ;) --Chris (Was I dreaming, or did the RedSox Actually win last night?)

1 0

Knight-Ridder realcities.com domains whitelisted
by Jeff Chan 18 Oct '04

18 Oct '04

I've whitelisted 100 domains from http://www.realcities.com/, which has a list of city sites run by large U.S. newspaper corporation Knight Ridder. None were blacklisted before. About a dozen were already whitelisted. Most are newspapers. These would be unlikely to be used by professional spammers. http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/realcities.sort Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] FP?: ultimatebizsource.biz
by Chris Santerre 17 Oct '04

17 Oct '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 10:49 AM >To: Chris Santerre >Cc: 'Jeff Chan'; 'SURBL Discussion list'; Joe Wein; Ryan Thompson >(E-mail) >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] FP?: ultimatebizsource.biz > > >On Friday, October 15, 2004, 7:50:06 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >>>From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] > >>>By evidence I was referring to spams. If you have one, >>>post it and how it got to you or at least a description of >>>how it got to you. >>> > >> Sorry I can't. It's the evil gaff back from 7/04 again. >Where none of the >> sumissions were being archived. > >How do you feel about removing the 7/04 list from WS? Or is there >a subset of those we could remove? > 2285 domains in that file. I dont' feel good about it at all. Especially because the domain we are talking about seems so iffy. I'm not one to remove all of these just because I don't have the archived reports. If they are proved to be FPs then hell yeah I will remove those FPs. But to remove over 2k of them just for 2 reported FPs in that file??? --Chris

5 11

Took top percentiles of DMOZ and wikipedia domains, some results
by Jeff Chan 17 Oct '04

17 Oct '04

I took the top 50th percentile of the multiple-version-intersected DMOZ domains and matched them with the top 70th percentile of the multiple-version-intersected wikipedia domains: http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/dmoz-50thpercentile.srt http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/wikipedia-70thpercentile.srt resulting in a list of about 15k domains: http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/percentile-wikipedia-dmoz.srt (first column is word counts:) 255838 255838 3955772 dmoz-50thpercentile.srt 28323 28323 402512 wikipedia-70thpercentile.srt 14982 14982 202925 percentile-wikipedia-dmoz.srt that appeared at least two or three times in both data sources. (Percentiles were chosen to give about two or three hits of domains within the same source.) I then matched those 15k against the list of all SURBL domains and got the following hits, all possible FPs: http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/percentile-wikipedia-dmoz-blocklist… 0catch.com 1asphost.com 741.com 8bit.co.uk 8m.net anzwers.org arena.ne.jp away.com centralhome.com cheapass.com f2g.net faithweb.com fateback.com fortunecity.de freewebpage.org galeon.com htmlplanet.com i8.com itgo.com iwarp.com kit.net kki.net.pl ledger-enquirer.com nana.co.il online-dictionary.biz p5.org.uk quuxuum.org republika.pl s5.com spaceports.com t35.com telepolis.com transnationale.org up.co.il xiloo.com zip.net zonai.com One additional test I'd like to apply to all these data is to remove any that are listed in SBL, but I haven't coded that up yet. However Ryan Thompson's GetURI does include an SBL check, along with other goodies like domain age, so I fed these into his CGI version, with the results at: http://ry.ca/cgi-bin/geturi.cgi?id=ham-es0EnYAUmBru8HxYCzvQ5x It looks like all are between three and ten years old, aside from: fortunecity.de 2.7 years old 16 NANAS online-dictionary.biz 214 days 0 NANAS nana.co.il 552 days 754 NANAS 1asphost.com 786 days 60 NANAS And only these two had SBL hits: 8bit.co.uk 1796 days 131 NANAS xiloo.com 1667 days 342 NANAS Aside from those two, the rest may be candidates for whitelisting, though I did not check them further. (Note also that GetURI does not count NANAS; I did those few manually. May I ask for some help in checking these? Note that we should still continue to check the DMOZ hits since there are probably some more FPs in there also: http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/dmoz-blocklist.summed.txt http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/dmoz-blocklist.txt http://spamcheck.freeapp.net/whitelists/dmoz-blocklist.ws 1338 13380 141946 dmoz-blocklist1.summed.txt 1338 1338 20533 dmoz-blocklist1.txt 1173 11730 124298 dmoz-blocklist1.ws Most are in WS. Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

5 18

FP in OB?
by Bill Landry 17 Oct '04

17 Oct '04

Domain, thechildsafetyguide.com, was listed in a Stork Avenue Newsletter (storkavenue.com) and is listed in OB. It's a fairly new domain, but seems legit and the web site looks legit: Registrant: American Family Safety Network Christian Bezick (cbezick(a)bellsouth.net) 2938 Banyan Blvd Circle NW Boca Raton FL,33431 US Tel. +001.5619129617 Creation Date: 24-May-2004 === - No NANAS listings - No SBL listings Bill

2 1

Theory about FPs for sites with open subscriptions
by Jeff Chan 16 Oct '04

16 Oct '04

After looking at NANAS hits for FPs, in particular the reporting parties and the destination addresses, I have a theory about some of the FPs. I think some anti-spam zealots may be deliberately subscribing spam traps, either their own or third parties' like Outblaze, to sites with open subscriptions. If so, they're probably doing it to draw attention to the fact that the sites have unconfirmed subscriptions. Or they could be cracker/spammer types trying to use them to poison the spamtrap feeds and therefore diminish the usefulness of data from them. This type of poisoning is a distinct possibility since it would appear that the "spams" (usually subscription newsletters) do appear to come from those sites or senders. I think we should consider the possibilities that either type of people (or even bots) could be adding otherwise legitimate sites to traps this way. (It would be trivially easy to write a spider to subscribe spamtrap or their own address to open subscription sites, and given some of the repeated reporters in NANAS, someone may have done that.) Whatever their reasons, we should not fall into this trap and list otherwise legitimate sites just because they have open subscriptions. Doing so probably diminishes the usefulness of SURBLs by increasing false positives. Comments, Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

2 2

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