From discuss-bounces@lists.surbl.org Fri Apr 8 06:48:07 2005 From: Chris Santerre csanterre@MerchantsOverseas.com To: "'Jeff Chan'" jeffc@surbl.org, "'SURBL Discussion list'" discuss@lists.surbl.org Subject: RE: [SURBL-Discuss] More spams with Zdnet redirector Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:47:20 -0400 ...
-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:55 PM To: SURBL Discussion list Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] More spams with Zdnet redirector
On Thursday, April 7, 2005, 12:45:51 PM, Patrik Nilsson wrote:
At 00:13 2005-04-07 -0700, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 11:58:31 PM, Nick Askew wrote:
Jeff,
So it seems that there is an obvious loophole in SURBL.
As long as the
spammer uses a legitimate business running a redirector
you will never
black
list them (perhaps the spammer could even set up their
own legitimate
redirector). This open redirector discussion for ZDNET
has been open for
several weeks now, they have had more than ample warning.
Nick
No, it's not a loophole. Programs like SpamAssassin and SpamCopURI correctly parse some redirection sites like g.msn.com and check the redirected-to site.
That workaround is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If we encourage client implementations to work around the
problem in that
way, we will always have:
- Clients that need to be updated with the latest
redirectors, unless we
provide and encourage implementations to use a constantly
updated online
source of redirectors.
- Major redirectors getting included in the special
work-arounds, like
Google, and smaller ones not getting included.
If we believe that open redirectors are bad, we should not solve the problem by working around a few major ones that we are
currently aware of.
Patrik
Our solution is to detect and check the big ones, and try to get all of them to not be open to spammers.
What's your solution? Blacklisting all open redirectors? So no one should be able to mention them?
Thats EXACTLY what the new gray list will do.
--Chris 'If it appears in spam, list it'
(I can't take credit for the above tagline. Another nut came up with it before me!) _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Jeff and Chris,
Here I agree completely with Chris. An open HTTP redirector is just the same as an open SMTP relay. Fifteen years ago SMTP relays were not only common, they were part of being a "helpful" citizen; Today, we all consider them invitations to abuse and organizations like SORBS exist to seek them out and blacklist them. Six years ago, a HTTP redirector was a similar concept - a friendly way to provide a service to others; In today's Internet environment, and open redirector is every bit as "evil" as an open SMTP relay - there is no way to prevent its abuse and it is a "screaming" invitation to all spammers - "use me, I'll help you!". Just as people seek out and blacklist SMTP relays, someone should for HTTP redirectors, If Chris makes such a list available, I will quickly adopt and use it (and recommend that everyone else does to).
Unfortunately, the world has changed - what was being friendly is now being abusive; It is not a change for the better, it just *is*.
Paul Shupak track@plectere.com
On Friday, April 8, 2005, 9:09:51 AM, List User wrote:
Here I agree completely with Chris. An open HTTP redirector isjust the same as an open SMTP relay. Fifteen years ago SMTP relays were not only common, they were part of being a "helpful" citizen; Today, we all consider them invitations to abuse and organizations like SORBS exist to seek them out and blacklist them. Six years ago, a HTTP redirector was a similar concept - a friendly way to provide a service to others; In today's Internet environment, and open redirector is every bit as "evil" as an open SMTP relay - there is no way to prevent its abuse and it is a "screaming" invitation to all spammers - "use me, I'll help you!". Just as people seek out and blacklist SMTP relays, someone should for HTTP redirectors, If Chris makes such a list available, I will quickly adopt and use it (and recommend that everyone else does to).
That's fine, but it's not the purpose of SURBLs, which is to list domains only used in spams.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."
-
Jeff Chan -
List Mail User