Jeff G. Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 JT, Please add "Not Just Another Bogus List dnsbl.njabl.org http://www.njabl.org/" to the available Blocklists on https://webmail.spamcop.net/horde/imp/spamcop/blacklists.php or http://webmail.spamcop.net/horde/imp/spamcop/blacklists.php. Also, while you are there, please add "except .10" to "SORBS DNSbl" to reflect reality and change "blacklist" to "blocklist" or perhaps "dnsbl" (with mixed case as appropriate) to reflect political realities. Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I second the motion! In fact, I made this suggestion in a (moved) message yesterday, found at: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...=30entry12897 I've been doing some web-based SC reporting of spams that got through my current settings, and was tantalized by seeing lines like this in the parsing details of the email source IP: 217.233.150.184 listed in dnsbl.njabl.org ( 127.0.0.3 ) 217.233.150.184 listed in dnsbl.njabl.org ( 127.0.0.3 ) (not sure why the parser lists the same NJABL result twice) Anyway, I sure hope that this can be done without too much trouble. David T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I just did a little searching in the old "spamcop-mail" archives and found a thread involving this particular BL that started with this message: http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...une/008628.html there was a lot of back and forth on it, and JT said that it wouldn't work in this message: http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...une/008642.html However, that was over a year ago, eons in Internet time, and it's possible that the NJABL has changed a bit since then. On the NJABL.org site, you'll see that their "dnsbl zones are currently available in query mode" and all entries resolve to one of the following: 127.0.0.2 - open relays 127.0.0.3 - dial-up/dynamic IP ranges* 127.0.0.4 - spam Sources 127.0.0.5 Multi-stage open relays 127.0.0.8 Systems with insecure formmail.cgi or similar CGI scripts which turn them into open relays 127.0.0.9 Open proxy servers *(Though dnsbl.njabl.org still contains lots of dialup/dynamic listings, no more are being added. All dialup/dynamic additions are being put into the dynablock.njabl.org zone, also available as part of combined.njabl.org) It looks like some of those zones would be useful. Also, in JT's archived response, he explained that: we can't use lists which include all dialups because it's perfectly valid for a dialup IP address to be listed as the source of an email because we check ALL the IP addresses in an email, not just the IP that connects to us Hmmm...you mean that the SC system can't be programmed to notice that a message coming from a dynamic IP (as identified by queries to the blocklists) is connecting directly to a mailhost MX (assuming that everyone is eventually converted to having to identify their mailhosts)? Thats' something that would certainly enable a lot more spam to be blocked, I'd think. David T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 you mean that the SC system can't be programmed to notice that a message coming from a dynamic IP (as identified by queries to the blocklists) is connecting directly to a mailhost MX Sure, if you promise to guarantee that no IP once identified as being such a type, say dial-up, will never, ever, and I mean never, ever change .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 ...Looks like JT has answered: jefft's reply in thread "non-SC blacklists not working?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Yep, you beat me to it Steve .. though I noticed that JT didn't answer the original call for help, although, spending time at his referenced link, it's pretty well stated there .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 though I noticed that JT didn't answer the original call for help, although, spending time at his referenced link, it's pretty well stated there .. I beg to differ. I just did some analysis of the "Blacklists Compared" page that JT cited and I'll post my results as a response in that ridiculously-long thread that now has a misleading title... David T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 My reference and the original "call for help" dealt with the ".10" dial-up classification .... but yes, agreed, take it back to the Topic you started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 My reference and the original "call for help" dealt with the ".10" dial-up classification .... but yes, agreed, take it back to the Topic you started. ah...I get it....I misread your post. There are still other very unanswered "JT questions" in recent threads other than my own...such as one about mail quotas, one about why messages don't seem to expire out of the Held Mail, etc. I hope he's not done answering just yet. David T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.