[SURBL-Discuss] Fwd: Re: ANTI-SURBL technique used by spammer
jeffc at surbl.org
Thu May 20 04:23:40 CEST 2004
On Thursday, May 20, 2004, 2:32:24 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
>> I brought it up due to the possible bad uses of this technology. It's
>> possible for a spammer to use this service for free bandwidth for images and
>> other content (flash, etc).
>> This is just one of those things to hold on to and keep an eye out for, if
>> the word get's out, the spammers might try and abuse it. From the message
>> boards, most people don't care what it's used for, except those using 40 GB
>> per day in illegal movie downloads cause they choose to be a mirror.
>> >> Are you aware of http://freecache.org ?
>> >> Take a look here if not:
>> >> http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/12/1635205.shtml?tid=126&tid=95
>> >> Thanks!
> We might tell them about SURBL and ask to implement caching only for non
> listed domains. Others implemented things like that allready. Jeff, can
> you take that actionpoint?
Yes, I asked them to deny services to spammers:
> I am asking freecache.org to consider blocking access
> to their services for spammers, as metamark is doing for
> redirection using SURBL data.
> Poster: jeffchan Date: May 19, 2004 06:07:59pm
> Forum: freecache Subject: Please consider blocking spammers
> Please consider denying spammers access to freecaching, as metamark.net is now doing:
> 4/30/04: Ask Bjørn Hansen of develooper.com is using SURBL data
> to block spammer domains in the Metamark Shorten Service URI
> shortening and redirection service. This is the first use of
> SURBL data to prevent abuse of a redirection site that we've
> heard of! Great going! Ask explains his motivation as: "I
> mostly did it to make it less likely that I'll have to deal
> with abusers of the service manually. Hopefully the other
> redirection services will realize that benefit soon as well."
More information about the Discuss