[SURBL-Discuss] Howdy

William Stearns wstearns at pobox.com
Sun Apr 11 10:52:56 CEST 2004


Good morning, Jeff, all,

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, Jeff Chan wrote:

> BTW, Kelsey and I brainstormed last night and I think we have a
> way to effectively prejudice new domain reports coming in from
> SpamCop without reference to SBL or to geographic databases like
> IP::Country::Fast or any other external sources like I had in mind
> originally. 
> 
> It's so simple that I might be tempted to call it elegant:
> 
> 1.  Resolve the incoming spam domains from SC into A and
> perhaps NS records.

	NS is a little tougher.  I could see us hurting people that left 
their name service with their registrar or large ISP's that simply host a 
lot of domains.  It would also be possible for a spammer to simply claim 
that ns1.earthlink.net and ns2.aol.com are their secondary and tertiary 
when they aren't.  It's not possible - or at least tougher - to fake A 
records.

> 2.  Keep a persistent tally counting those IPs. (a history)
> 3.  For As or NSes of incoming domains that match many identical
> or nearby IP tallies (i.e., the new domains use known bad old IPs),
> drop their inclusion thresholds in some statistically cool and
> relevant way. 
> 
> To our thinking, this will automatically and in a self-tuning
> way catch spam gangs, rogue IPs, rogue blocks, rogue ISPs in any
> nation, etc.  (Manually resolving some of the domains in spams I
> get seem to show China and a few gangs a lot.  I'd dearly like
> to crush them early and often.  Building this refinement into the
> second version of the sc.surbl.org data engine may very well do
> that.) 
> 
> The big advantage is that far fewer reports would be needed
> for a *new* domain to get added to the list if it has an IP
> near previously reported domain's IPs.  We would expire IPs
> like domains, but probably with a longer time window for IPs,
> so that cleaned IPs would eventually come off the tallies.
> 
> To clarify, the IPs would not get added to any lists, just
> get used internally to lower the inclusion threshold for the
> number of SpamCop reports needed to get added.  Inclusion would
> still be triggered by SpamCop reports, but in a more sensitive
> way for bad guy IPs.
> 
> Seems almost too good to be true.  Am I missing something?

	The approach made sense to me as well.  
http://www.stearns.org/sa-blacklist/spamip.current.txt is the report
created from the A record harvesting.
	I'd be glad to provide the raw data collected over the past 5 
months.  I also have SOA and whois data for the entire sa-blacklist.
	Cheers,
	- Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	"There are two kinds of people, those who work and those who
want the credit. Try to stay in the first category. The competition is
much smaller."
	-- Mahatma Ghandi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Stearns (wstearns at pobox.com).  Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f,
rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at:   http://www.stearns.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


More information about the Discuss mailing list