At 16:14 2004-09-29 -0400, Chris Santerre wrote:
Did you just create a new term?
"Fisuf Spam"
:-)
Works for me! I think I had a "discussion" about this domain with Jeff before. Which is why I rang a bell. I think this may be one of the ones that started the whole UC debate.
Hmmm.... could more Fisuf Spam be around the corner?
In my opinion - apparently (according to some definitions) legitimate emails that people have actually signed up for, that are obviously *only* sent out by known spammers to people tricked into entering their adress, or someone elses on a web site, that have *no* real purpose except to send spam - should be classified as spam, *not ham*. Even if people have signed up for the spam.
Patrik
quickinspirations.com
I get a lot of quickinspirations.com spams sent to my server which I custom-block.
Here is my rational for blocking them:
Their e-mails are worded as if the user has subscribed to them... but there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that soooooo many of my clients, many of whom work in different offices, different industries, and don't even know each other... no way in hell ALL of these people subscribed to quickinspirations.com
Therefore, there is a sort of dishonesty thing going here that, in my view, puts quickinspirations.com "over the top"
quickinspirations.com is easy to miss because many of their e-mails look so innocent and are not trying to sell anything. But don't let this fool you... they add a big-time sales pitch into the mix every several e-mails (with some minor sales pitches along the way). I wonder if anyone really actually subscribes to them? I suspect that there are few actual subscribers compared to illegitimate subscribers... that is, real people who didn't really subscribe but receive their newsletters.
After I started blocking them, I got zero complains from my users. If someone were to complain, I'd bet that this person didn't actually subscribe, but just started liking these "thought for the day" messages.
If not worthy of SURBL, then a no-brainer for UC.
Rob McEwen
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 4:39:48 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
quickinspirations.com
I get a lot of quickinspirations.com spams sent to my server which I custom-block.
Here is my rational for blocking them:
Their e-mails are worded as if the user has subscribed to them... but there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that soooooo many of my clients, many of whom work in different offices, different industries, and don't even know each other... no way in hell ALL of these people subscribed to quickinspirations.com
Therefore, there is a sort of dishonesty thing going here that, in my view, puts quickinspirations.com "over the top"
Most of these sites have open subscription forms, which invites abuse. If they have any kind of incentive programs for "affiliates" or anything like that, then that plus open subscriptions would *beg* for abuse.
That said, SBL does not list quickinspirations.com name servers or web site, etc. But NJABL does, and so do some others.
Looks like they're part of euniverse.
quickinspirations.com is easy to miss because many of their e-mails look so innocent and are not trying to sell anything. But don't let this fool you... they add a big-time sales pitch into the mix every several e-mails (with some minor sales pitches along the way).
Can you provide an example of one of those?
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
Can you provide an example of one of those?
Ouch. You've caught me off-guard.
I've been deleting these off my server after double-checking them. I filter out thousands of messages a day and, among these thousands, these are about 1 or 2 hundred that I audit for FPs. These "quickinspirations" fell into that category and I delete these after auditing them. I wouldn't go out of my way to audit these in particular expect for the fact that they are grouped together with a part of my filtering which, **overall**, does need some double-checking.
Therefore, ironically, several crossed my path today and I deleted them all. Sorry. I'll send you some when I get the next batch.
Rob McEwen
Jeff:
Most of these sites have open subscription forms, which invites abuse. If they have any kind of incentive programs for "affiliates" or anything like that, then that plus open subscriptions would *beg* for abuse.
I've seen this phenomenon before... but I don't think this is at all what is going on with quickinspirations. The volume of (illegitimate) subscribers seens too high... but I could be wrong.
Where I've seen open subscription forms really get abused is where you have a political web site where someone signs up their friend/relative (without their knowledge) and that friend's politics differs... so that they can "teach" this person. Or a political enemy of the web site signs tons of people up anonymously just to get them in trouble for spamming. In fact, I recently got wnd.com (whose newsletter is "open loop") off of spamcop for this very reason, and they are ranked 1,595 on alexa.com!
On Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 7:34:53 PM, Jeff Chan wrote:
Most of these sites have open subscription forms, which invites abuse. If they have any kind of incentive programs for "affiliates" or anything like that, then that plus open subscriptions would *beg* for abuse.
That said, SBL does not list quickinspirations.com name servers or web site, etc. But NJABL does, and so do some others.
OK I took a look at the NANAS hits, and all quickinspirations mail seems to be sent from the same /27:
64.37.73.212 64.37.73.221 64.37.73.218 64.37.73.214 64.37.73.211 64.37.73.217 ...
So if you block 64.37.73.192/27 or RBL it, ***you'll probably never see any mail from quickinspirations ever again***.
Since these can be trivially blocked using regular RBLs or access lists these probably aren't great SURBL candidates to begin with.
The same cannot be said of spammers using zombies.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
-
Jeff Chan -
Patrik Nilsson -
Rob McEwen