Hi!
Sorry to bother all of you with this, but it might help solving a issue we seem to have with a old SPEWS listing:
Could anyone involved with SPEWS or with contacts there ask them to remove a block they set in 2002/2003 ? http://www.spews.org/html/S1441.html
The seem to have blocked a pretty large range, and that range is also including the SURBL mailinglist server. Obviously some people are missing posts when filtering with SPEWS. We have tried to contact SPEWS but they are not very responsive.
We would be rather thankfull if they could exclude 81.23.230.0/24 from their listing, and even better remove the complete block they set.
Thanks for your time.
Bye, Raymond Dijkxhoorn - SURBL.
* Raymond Dijkxhoorn raymond@prolocation.net [2005-01-07 14:18]:
The seem to have blocked a pretty large range, and that range is also including the SURBL mailinglist server. Obviously some people are missing posts when filtering with SPEWS. We have tried to contact SPEWS but they are not very responsive.
Raymond, from my little knowledge on how SPEWS works, I guess you have to get someone at netholding.nl to post some proof that the spammers swhu.com and milf.de are terminated to NANAE.
The Listing for 2, 81.23.224.0/19, swhu.com (netholding.nl)
is at Level 2 and no one is advised to block Level 2 addresses. So the problem could be worse.
I haven't seen any posts concerning S1441 to NANAE recently.
Alex
Alex,
The seem to have blocked a pretty large range, and that range is also including the SURBL mailinglist server. Obviously some people are missing posts when filtering with SPEWS. We have tried to contact SPEWS but they are not very responsive.
from my little knowledge on how SPEWS works, I guess you have to get someone at netholding.nl to post some proof that the spammers swhu.com and milf.de are terminated to NANAE.
The Listing for 2, 81.23.224.0/19, swhu.com (netholding.nl)
is at Level 2 and no one is advised to block Level 2 addresses. So the problem could be worse.
I haven't seen any posts concerning S1441 to NANAE recently.
They were terminated 2 years ago. Its pretty old crap thats listed inside that ticket. Ohw well, would they wake up if we would put spews.org in surbl ? ;)
Bye, Raymond.
On Friday, January 7, 2005, 7:39:28 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Alex,
The seem to have blocked a pretty large range, and that range is also including the SURBL mailinglist server. Obviously some people are missing posts when filtering with SPEWS. We have tried to contact SPEWS but they are not very responsive.
from my little knowledge on how SPEWS works, I guess you have to get someone at netholding.nl to post some proof that the spammers swhu.com and milf.de are terminated to NANAE.
The Listing for 2, 81.23.224.0/19, swhu.com (netholding.nl)
is at Level 2 and no one is advised to block Level 2 addresses. So the problem could be worse.
I haven't seen any posts concerning S1441 to NANAE recently.
They were terminated 2 years ago. Its pretty old crap thats listed inside that ticket.
Yeah it's 2002. Not exactly fresh.
Ohw well, would they wake up if we would put spews.org in surbl ? ;)
They would, but I'd need to whitelist them then. ;-)
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
On Friday, January 7, 2005, 8:56:31 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Yeah it's 2002. Not exactly fresh.
Ohw well, would they wake up if we would put spews.org in surbl ? ;)
They would, but I'd need to whitelist them then. ;-)
Well, if they can do the same on their end that would be perfect.
Yes, it would be nice if they took as much care with their data as we take with ours. :-)
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
on Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:02:53AM -0800, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Friday, January 7, 2005, 8:56:31 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Yeah it's 2002. Not exactly fresh.
Ohw well, would they wake up if we would put spews.org in surbl ? ;)
They would, but I'd need to whitelist them then. ;-)
Well, if they can do the same on their end that would be perfect.
Yes, it would be nice if they took as much care with their data as we take with ours. :-)
I know you are all just kidding about listing spews.org. You'd have to be insane to SURBLize a domain that ardent antispammers use on a regular basis. But if you're not kidding, I'd remind you all of:
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
I'd really rather not see a cross-BL pissing match anytime soon :)
Hi!
Ohw well, would they wake up if we would put spews.org in surbl ? ;)
They would, but I'd need to whitelist them then. ;-)
Well, if they can do the same on their end that would be perfect.
Yes, it would be nice if they took as much care with their data as we take with ours. :-)
I know you are all just kidding about listing spews.org. You'd have to be insane to SURBLize a domain that ardent antispammers use on a regular basis. But if you're not kidding, I'd remind you all of:
"If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
I'd really rather not see a cross-BL pissing match anytime soon :)
It would be nice if someone with contacts there could delist the netblock.
Bye, Raymond.
on Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:26:01PM +0100, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
It would be nice if someone with contacts there could delist the netblock.
The thing about SPEWS is that it is anonymously run, and very purposely so. I have a client who was assigned (by AT&T) a netblock that had been polluted by "Gaven Stubberfield" when he was using it, and they had a devil of a time after they set up their outmxen on IPs in that block. My efforts to reach SPEWS came to naught, but eventually they updated the listing. I wish I could tell you more, but there are reasons why the SPEWS team remains anonymous - notably, the spurious lawsuits filed against a variety of antispammers by lawyers in Florida in an attempt to determine who was behind SPEWS. I don't blame them for remaining anonymous, and I only wish they were more reactive to updates. The upshot for me has been that I simply don't use SPEWS for anything but research.
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
It would be nice if someone with contacts there could delist the netblock.
AFAIK you have to post such requests in nana-bl (moderated NG) news:news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting - SPEWS watches this NG. I can't post there (1 attempt to get write access failed).
Bye, Frank
On 11 jan 2005, at 17:11, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
It would be nice if someone with contacts there could delist the netblock.
AFAIK you have to post such requests in nana-bl (moderated NG) news:news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting - SPEWS watches this NG.
That would be the appropriate place to go (for netholding, that is).
I can't post there (1 attempt to get write access failed).
The group is moderated, but per *post*, as far as I'm aware, not per poster.
Vince.
Vincent Schonau wrote:
[news:news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting]
The group is moderated, but per *post*, as far as I'm aware, not per poster.
Yes, and of course you could discuss it with the moderators if an article is rejected. In my case I simply posted it again in nanae instead of nanabl. It wasn't about SPEWS, only a case of SORBS 127.0.0.6, and everybody (minus me ;-) knew this problem.
Bye. Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Raymond Dijkxhoorn writes:
Sorry to bother all of you with this, but it might help solving a issue we seem to have with a old SPEWS listing:
Could anyone involved with SPEWS or with contacts there ask them to remove a block they set in 2002/2003 ? http://www.spews.org/html/S1441.html
The seem to have blocked a pretty large range, and that range is also including the SURBL mailinglist server. Obviously some people are missing posts when filtering with SPEWS. We have tried to contact SPEWS but they are not very responsive.
I don't think I'd bother. I think they may still be listing the Apache.org server farm, include all the SpamAssassin listservers. And we don't care ;)
- --j.
-
Alex Pleiner -
Frank Ellermann -
Jeff Chan -
jm＠jmason.org -
Raymond Dijkxhoorn -
Steven Champeon -
Vincent Schonau