RFowler Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 >>>A) The owner of the receiving server that is misusing the list of IP addresses, Done. >>>>or B ) The owner of the sending server that has allowed a misconfiguration or mismanagement issue to get it listed on the SCBL. Done. Like I said a few times over a couple of threads. I hate spam as much as the next guy but nuking the server for 24 hours is overkill and punative. It is the collateral damage that bothers me most. You guys keep deflecting blame by saying it is everybody else's responsibility when you could easily lower the thresholds for putting an IP on the block list and reducing the amount of time it is blocked. I get the concept of spamcop but look how many people come here to complain. There would be a lot more complaints if you put the link to the forums in more prominent places on the site, believe me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 There is a member here who tells a story of msn email being delayed by months because of a hardware failure where the machine, with its mail queue, was removed from service for a while. When the machine was returned to service, it delivered those messages queued months earlier. The 'glory' days of having a (U.S.) [at]Home account .... before it disappeared, I believe the contest winner of having the 'oldest e-mail delived /today/' came in with something like 14 months between the time it was accepted at an [at]Home server and the day it was 'delivered' ..... my 'best' was only 11 months delay .... Your 'other issue with MCI' was addressed in another (your) Topic (why are you hijacking someone else's issue with your rant?) .... and the results were based on data developed 'here' that should have been "common sense" by the folks that Admin that stuff .... I remember stating that "it couldn't happen unless ...." ... Steven came along and proved/demonstrated exactly that .... this is the 'good service' being discussed ..... having your paid-for services troubleshot by folks volunteering their time 'here' in support of the tool you are badmouthing ...???? something wrong with this picture ..... I get the concept of spamcop but look how many people come here to complain. There would be a lot more complaints if you put the link to the forums in more prominent places on the site, believe me. Yet there are NNTP rantings about the fact that the Forum has so much more "fanfare, focus, featured' prominence as the newsgroups predate this Forum .. and if you had the nerve, you'd find complaints galore "here" about the 'official' web pages, FAQ, focus, support, etc. .... once again, making me wonder if you've looked at the SpamCop FAQ 'here' ..... there is still some of the history explaining why that monster of a document was created ... There are may complaints by 'users' ... but 99% of those issues can only be fixed by the Admins of the servers involved .... and yet again, you are talking to other 'users' here .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFowler Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 >>>SpamCop FAQ Yes, I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 nuking the server for 24 hours is overkill and punative. 24 hours is much better than permanently like many other lists. And again, the 24 hours is a worst case scenario based on the percentage of spam coming from the server. You guys keep deflecting blame by saying it is everybody else's responsibility when you could easily lower the thresholds for putting an IP on the block list and reducing the amount of time it is blocked. Once again, you are talking to other users of spamcop services. We can not change anything about the list that you can not also do. I get the concept of spamcop but look how many people come here to complain. There would be a lot more complaints if you put the link to the forums in more prominent places on the site, believe me. The complaints are mainly by folks who don't understand. Many of the strongest supporters originally came in here complaining about it. Once they understood the issues, they stopped complaining and started supporting. Again, this forum is the only part we (as users) have any control over. We have made requests for changes to the main site, but those requests were lost in the legal department, last we heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turetzsr Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 <snip> Like I said a few times over a couple of threads. I hate spam as much as the next guy but nuking the server for 24 hours is overkill and punative. It is the collateral damage that bothers me most. You guys keep deflecting blame by saying it is everybody else's responsibility when you could easily lower the thresholds for putting an IP on the block list and reducing the amount of time it is blocked. <snip> ...Okay, we get it, you don't like the way the SpamCop blacklist is populated (with IP addresses) and used. But you ignore an inconvenient (for you) fact: SpamCop doesn't "nuke" anything, it lists IP addresses (some, but not all, of which are servers). You are perfectly free to hold the opinion that "[y]ou guys keep deflecting blame by saying it is everybody else's responsibility when you could easily lower the thresholds ..." but the simple fact is that the thresholds are as they are because they suit the purposes of the people who use the blacklist, and they use it in the way they think best to protect their (not your) resources. Their server, their rules. ...Not to mention that fact that "we" (tinw) can not easily, or even with difficulty, lower the thresholds because "we" have no control over those thresholds -- Ironport does. And, again, it is (I assume) responsive to its customers -- the users of the blacklist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 You are likely blocking more real email than you are blocking spam. You must be getting tired of hearing this, but... SpamCop doesn't block the emails If any blocking is taking place, it's happening at the servers that are supposed to be receiving your mail, period. That's NOT the recommended use of the SCBL. The recommended use is for tagging and filtering, which is how my mail gets handled (I have a SpamCop email account). When a message comes at me from an IP address that's currently listed on the SCBL, then the system flags it as coming from a listed IP and puts it in my Held Mail folder, which I check several times a day. False positives are *very* rare in my case....they're usually HTML email full of pretty pictures from some vendor who I've given my address to (FireStone, Target, etc.) and whom I've not yet whitelisted. If I want those messages to go straight to my inbox, then I whitelist the senders. The scenario I've described above is how the SCBL is *supposed* to be used....if your messages are getting outright blocked, then its up to someone to convince the admins on those servers to use the SCBL as I've described above. The SCBL is a tool, so go talk to the people who are using the tool in manners that you don't like, but don't complain about the tool....you won't get anywhere doing that...unless it's perhaps therapeutic for you? (IOW, you're wasting your time) DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Nothing wrong with that but not in the SC Blocklist Help forum. Probably confusing the heck out of Farelf .... battling keyboards ... he was choosing to handle the situation one way, I was going another ... As noted somewhere prior, the hijacking of someone else's Topic/Discussion was pre-empted (OK, should have been done sooner) by splitting out all the crap from that Topic, then that split out dialog was merged back into this Topic .... not sure I want to call it much of a Discussion at this point. Current status; http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...ip=142.77.1.111 142.77.1.111 not listed in bl.spamcop.net http://www.senderbase.org/?searchBy=ipaddr...ng=142.77.1.111 Volume Statistics for this IP Magnitude Vol Change vs. Average Last day ......... 4.6 .. -63% Last 30 days ... 4.1 .. -89% Average ......... 5.1 The 'funny' part of all this ... the guy that was 'in charge' of fixing the actual problem missed all this crap because it was happening 'elsewhere' .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Probably confusing the heck out of Farelf .... battling keyboards ... he was choosing to handle the situation one way, I was going another ...Yours was the better alternative (besides which you have faster fingers). ... The 'funny' part of all this ... the guy that was 'in charge' of fixing the actual problem missed all this crap because it was happening 'elsewhere' ...Now there's a punishment to fit the crime (of hijacking the other topic) - though in general terms of C&P I think the penilizing of the viagra pushers takes some beating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 You are likely blocking more real email than you are blocking spam. Have you ever considered that? It is the old "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" approach to spam. I can confidently say that in the last six months I have had only one legitimate Email that was sent to me trapped as a result of the SpamCop block list. I have had thousands of spam Emails put to one side. Because I use filtering rather than deletion as my spam handling process, the incorrectly identified Email was still delivered in the same day. But with well over half the Email traffic on the Internet now positively identified as spam it really isn't surprising that ISPs are choosing to block the spew based on blocklists. If you have a problem spend a few dollars and set up an alternative SMTP mailserver for sending your Email. I reckon you could achieve what you want for around $30 per year and still stay with MCI for everything else you need. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFowler Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 >>>>The 'funny' part of all this ... the guy that was 'in charge' of fixing the actual problem missed all this crap because it was happening 'elsewhere' .... I dont think he missed a thing. I was bringing up points that were more about the philosophy of spamcop than the "nuts and bolts" of configuring a mailserver. I realized all along that spamcop does not block anything, it is the users of the blocklist doing the actual blocking. I just feel that you are giving people a tool that is being misused all too often. I think that the misuse is what is going to lead to the downfall of this particular blocklist. My ISP at home (a large cable company) uses spamcop and I have made many complaints about the use of spamcop, I would imagine I am not the only person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I realized all along that spamcop does not block anything, it is the users of the blocklist doing the actual blocking. That's certainly NOT apparent from your rantings.....er responses. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I just feel that you are giving people a tool that is being misused all too often. I think that the misuse is what is going to lead to the downfall of this particular blocklist. My ISP at home (a large cable company) uses spamcop and I have made many complaints about the use of spamcop, I would imagine I am not the only person. For an email server to get listed means it is not competently set up! If email server was set up correct SpamCop would be just blocking a zombie computer, as SpamCop only identifies the spam source unless it is concealed by a ISP's misconfigured email server SpamCop would send an email, trying to contact the owner of ALL reported IP addresses, for every single report made by SpamCop members. (Others have sent complaints about your pig ignorant provider also) It turns out many do not care read them or bother to correct a problem that is spewing spam filth (which one are you defending?). SpamCop has been sending emails to abuse[at]ca.mci.com since August . September was mainly UUBE (as bad if not worse than spam as it Joe Jobs email addresses) One thing that does get the ball rolling is when the offending IP gets listed (SpamCop actually lists as spam is being sent, not after accurately bitbining billions of spam in seconds, but delists quicker than other blocklists) Would you use the phone if you had to listen to a 10-second brothel advertisement every time you made a call? This is what spam is likened to most! If email is important to you get a competent email provider and stop trying to kill the messenger which is all SpamCop is NEVER AUTOMATICLY ACCEPT AN EMAIL ADDRESS YOUR ISP FORCES ON YOU! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dra007 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 That's certainly NOT apparent from your rantings.....er responses. ...and there are many here that would like to see an even more aggressive implematation of SpamCop. I think the group that would rather tolerate spam is a minority and made up mostly of people that benefit from it, for obvious reasons.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Uh oh....the Canadian MCI server in question has been reported again for sending UUBE: Submitted: Friday, September 29, 2006 12:27:51 AM -0700: Undeliverable mail: Your 1oan Approval. * 1943122991 ( 142.77.1.111 ) ( UUBE ) To: uube[at]devnull.spamcop.net DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFowler Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 >>>Would you use the phone if you had to listen to a 10-second brothel advertisement every time you made a call? This is what spam is likened to most! How come 90% of the email that is sent to us is spam, yet I successfully block it and delete it. Without losing any legit emails? I could not properly congfigure a mailserver if you put a gun to my head but I can manage to block spam. >>>If email is important to you get a competent email provider and stop trying to kill the messenger which is all SpamCop is I am not trying to kill spamcop, just make it so they don't punitively punish hundreds or thousands of people because the thresholds are too low. >>>NEVER AUTOMATICLY ACCEPT AN EMAIL ADDRESS YOUR ISP FORCES ON YOU! I manage a few dozen domains, I choose the addresses. Nobody forces me to take an address. >>Uh oh....the Canadian MCI server in question has been reported again for sending UUBE: Submitted: Friday, September 29, 2006 12:27:51 AM -0700: Undeliverable mail: Your 1oan Approval. * 1943122991 ( 142.77.1.111 ) ( UUBE ) To: uube[at]devnull.spamcop.net ....and why is it not blocked now? curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 ....and why is it not blocked now? Probably because the SCBL doesn't list a server for only one report. So the maths hasn't calculated that it should be listed yet. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Probably because the SCBL doesn't list a server for only one report. So the maths hasn't calculated that it should be listed yet.This adds yet more confusion to those UUBE items showing up in the report database. Some are convinced that those are spam trap hits (it even says that in the Glossary here), but if that were the case, I think the IP would be back on the SCBL. Oh, and to Mr. Fowler....I take back the "rantings" comment....some of your earier messages could be seen as mild ranting, but not your recent responses. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet in this topic, but the IP address in question (142.77.1.111) has several mentions in the news.admin.net-abuse.sightings Usenet newsgroup from July 2006 for backscatter (aka UUBE). Here's a URL: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22142.7...p;oe=utf-8& DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 >>>Would you use the phone if you had to listen to a 10-second brothel advertisement every time you made a call? This is what spam is likened to most! How come 90% of the email that is sent to us is spam, yet I successfully block it and delete it. Without losing any legit emails? I could not properly congfigure a mailserver if you put a gun to my head but I can manage to block spam. The only one "punitively punishing" anyone is your incompetent ISP who will not fix/make this email server compliant My spam ratio is nearer 99% I get about 1 spam email a week pass through SpamCop if that. The little spam that does get through is moved/dragged via IMAP & mouse to my "very easy to report" (VER) folder for reporting (which will count towards blocking on the SCBL) All of SpamCop email spam is accurately put in a "very easy to report" (VER) folder and at a few clicks of a mouse SpamCop sends an abuse report for everyone SpamCop does not just block and bitbin/delete. It accuratly sorts spam from ham allowing you to VER every single piece of spam. Just deleting spam does nothing except allow spammers immunity SpamCop email allows one to attack the spammer (many of whom end up in the courts and or jail as SpamCop often sends reports to other interested parties) If email is important to you get a competent email provider NEVER AUTOMATICLY ACCEPT AN EMAIL ADDRESS YOUR ISP FORCES ON YOU! I'm in Sydney Australia a customer of SpamCop using the only email address I will ever need Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFowler Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 >>>Oh, and to Mr. Fowler....I take back the "rantings" comment.. No problem. I was a little angry, it was my fault. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff G. Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 More Report History follows (each of the 13964 domains controlled by MCI/UUNet/Worldcom per http://www.senderbase.org/?searchBy=ipaddr...ng=142.77.1.111 needs to be checked for bouncing ("Undeliverable mail:") and for delayed mail warnings ("WARNING. Mail Delayed:")): Submitted: Saturday 2006/10/07 23:29:46 -0400: WARNING. Mail Delayed: High-quality medications here. 1956418024 ( 142.77.1.111 ) ( UUBE ) To: uube[at]devnull.spamcop.net ------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Saturday 2006/10/07 04:28:31 -0400: WARNING. Mail Delayed: vvatch this st-0ck Trade 1955242165 ( 142.77.1.111 ) ( UUBE ) To: uube[at]devnull.spamcop.net --------------------------------------------- Submitted: Friday 2006/10/06 07:28:23 -0400: WARNING. Mail Delayed: Re: Home Loan - APPROVED. - 12Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:56:0... 1953831594 ( 142.77.1.111 ) ( UUBE ) To: uube[at]devnull.spamcop.net ------------------------------------------------- Submitted: Thursday 2006/10/05 09:28:30 -0400: Undeliverable mail: this is how I got thin 1952353510 ( 142.77.1.111 ) ( UUBE ) To: uube[at]devnull.spamcop.net ----------------------------------------------- Submitted: Monday 2006/10/02 09:28:25 -0400: WARNING. Mail Delayed: Solid Loans with options. 1947636416 ( 142.77.1.111 ) ( UUBE ) To: uube[at]devnull.spamcop.net ----------------------------------------------- Submitted: Sunday 2006/10/01 16:28:59 -0400: WARNING. Mail Delayed: this is how I got thin 1946704317 ( 142.77.1.111 ) ( UUBE ) To: uube[at]devnull.spamcop.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.