SORBS on the highway to h...?

[Miss Betsy]

One of the great things about the Internet is that anything goes - there is no censorship, there is freedom to go and come and say just about anything you want. 

You really think there is no censorship? Please remember Mr. Sullivan!! Mr. Sullivan is allready controlling much freedom on the Internet.

What don't you understand about 'no one has to go to his site or use his list'?

If someone does not want emails from your IP address, s/he does not have to accept them. 'Not Accepting' is not depriving you of your freedom. It is preventing you from forcing your way in where you are not wanted.

QUOTE 

Everyone, at some time, makes an error (of judgment or of technique) and the consequences are inescapable. Everyone, at some time, is a victim because someone close to them has made an error

I I can not comment on this, because it sounds like a phrase of that in a spam!

If you put your hand in a fire, you will get burned. If you drive on a highway, you have a chance of being hit by a drunk driver. Those are consequences. The first is inevitable unless you have learned to walk on hot coals. The second is not inevitable. However, if a drunk driver hits you, your car will be damaged. Just because you are 'innocent' doesn't mean that nothing will happen to you or your car. The way to prevent accidents is to drive defensively and to prevent drunks from driving. The way to prevent being blocklisted is to choose your ISP carefully.

Anything that you don't like, or agree with, is not spam. Only email that you have not requested is spam.

Miss Betsy

[nicejerk]

Once again, thank you for your comments.

If someone does not want emails from your IP address, s/he does not have to accept them. 'Not Accepting' is not depriving you of your freedom. It is preventing you from forcing your way in where you are not wanted.

I totally agree with you. But when this “someone” is dictated via SORBS list, blocking communication between businesses, that are doing business, both parts wanting to communicate, the blocking is a sabotage.

As I quoted Alden Bates before:

SORBS is basically the spam-fighting equivalent of hanging all your suspects just to make sure you get the criminal.

You can make a civil arrest, but you can not take the law into your own hand. That is a legal fact in the real physical world. Mr. Sullivan is making his own extreamist laws, and administrators may not be aware of that. By using SORBS´ list, administrators are applying Mr. Sullivans laws into practice. By practicing Mr. Sullivans law, the administrator must be responsible for that act. But is the administrator aware of Mr. Sullivans ethical laws/rules? I highly doubt that, but I hope our discussion has revealed some of SORBS´ unethical practices.

Some years ago, my mother was receiving obscene phone calls, from a jealous/disturb woman. Of course the phone company could not reveal the identity of the person calling, which forced my mother to go to the police. The police then, went to the phone company and authorized, they tracked down the abuser, and the abuser got an ultimatum. That is exactly how our mail administrator works with f. ex. SpamCop, tracking down abusers, locating them and closing down their accounts. That doesn´t work with SORBS. Mr. Sullivan will not/can not cooperate with anyone.

It is ridiculous to believe, that by blocking a span of IPs will make spammers disappear. Especially today, after the can spam act, it is very important to track down spammers, identify them and give them what serves them right. An administrator is not born perfect. For the Internet and administrators to develop, there must be given some space and tolorance to learn, not simply block them out. SORBS´ way of blocking is the Nazy´s 1930´s ideology of perfectionism, that only brought themselves down.

[Merlyn]

This thread is done. You are turning into a troll.

You know so little and you know it so fluently.

[StevenUnderwood]

I highly doubt that, but I hope our discussion has revealed some of SORBS´ unethical practices.

You have proved nothing of the sort because you refuse to back up your "story" with any facts, like the IP of an addrss (any address) which caused a listing of an IP range for one report as you state.

Until then, you can stop talking because that is all it is, talk.

Many of the people who use spamcop also use SORBS. I use it in my email config becuase I choose to. I have seen no evidence that ANY of what you say is the truth.

[nicejerk]

Hi again and thank you all for your time.

This thread is done.

I totally agree with you.

You are turning into a troll.

I must disagree with you. Dynamic and search for truth, is the drive.

You know so little and you know it so fluently.

Would there be something you know, that I happened not to know? Honestly I don´t know. Let´s not make this anything personal. It´s allowed and always fun to talk about someone, that has just left the party.

You have proved nothing of the sort because you refuse to back up your "story" with any facts, like the IP of an addrss (any address) which caused a listing of an IP range for one report as you state.

I have never stated that I have proven anything and I never will. I have been poking and I think this has been a good dialog we´ve had, where many questions have been brought up, few answered, but at least broadened/narrowed some peoples mind. This discussion has a.o. led me to a somewhat truth, that using DNSBL like SORBS is a collateral damage, used by mail administrators that do not bother configuring their servers. Kind of funny when you think of the purpose of Mr. Sullivans´ list and statements. There is no reason for me to reveal our mail server´s IP# (actually it would be irresponsible of me), because you all know, that we are not the first victim in SORBS´ list. But FYI, I can reveal that all our networks access to the Internet is via NATs, supported by Outpost firewall v2.0. All PCs have F-Prot v3.14c antivirus installed. We are not irresponsible.

I have seen no evidence that ANY of what you say is the truth.

Honestly, I do not know how much truth there is in the articles I have referred to and/or read myself. But it is hardly any coincidence that they match pretty well. Everything points to that, that Mr. Sullivan fits the description I have given him and for sure I would avoid using any DNSBL on any mail server. I take my hat off for those, who effectively configure their mail servers as f.ex. the one below (seems to be, at a glance).

Here might be interesting reading:

http://www.info-world.com/spam.diagnosis/

Even though the article is about the long gone Osirusoft, then there is always a question where this flaw also applies to. I agree with the author, that the use of DNSBL should be banned, especially a list cooked up by a person like Mr. Sullivan. Thanks to common sence, the use of his list is not as widespread as indicaded.

I consider the use of a list, like that of Mr. Sullivan, as a “cheap solution” for an administrator of a mail server. Serious administrators configure their servers. All the information is on the Internet, and there is no excuse for using a cheap solution. For security there are many solutions like:

http://www.earthlink.net/about/press/pr_as...h/asta_tech.pdf

A good point here:

Many people have criticised those who criticise DNSBL systems. From my own experience http://www.info-world.com/spam.diagnosis/ it is apparent that DNSBL is leading to the breakdown of communications. It is also totally unnecessary - yes unnecessary. I run a modified version of SpamAssassin on my client’s server which rejects 99.99% of all spam and false positives are less than 0.1%. Please email me and I will give you the details of the dumping box where users of the system can check up occasionally just to make sure.

And for further info:

If you are an ISP wanting effective spam blocking, click here for the use of a constantly updated and modified SpamAssassin system which provides better spam email discrimination than any unmodified factor rankings.

If you want to do a lookup on an IP#, you might want to bookmark this “one pit stop”: http://www.moensted.dk/spam/

Well, this one was on me. I thank you all for your comments and critics. If SORBS wouldn´t have happened at this time, I would probably never have gotten the time to dig into this and just forgotten all about it.

I consider my question on SORBS is done. I´ve just revised and added to my conclusion, and filed for future reference (which I doubt will ever come to). I will drop in for the next 2-3 days to see if you have any further comments. I will try not to answer (as I guess you have had enaugh of my comments), but that of course depends on the content.

PS: Off topic: Patch the patch that was patched http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.01.html#subj9

Again, thank you very much for you help.

Best regards to you all

nicejerk

[StevenUnderwood]

You do realize that SpamCop is another DNSBL and not associated with SORBS at all except that the email service can utilize their list as well, correct?

Now that I see you are pushing the spamassassin solution, I can give you a rebuttal. The thread here is more of you thinking aloud and using our rebuttals to formulate your opinion. I don't see where you could have swayed anyone's opinion without proof of anything.

One argument against SpamAssassin for many configurations is COST. Many busineses pay for internet access by the amount of traffic we receive. With spamassassin, my servers need to accept the entire message in order to scan it, paying for that privlidge.

With a DNSBL, chosen by the administrator with the knowledge of the users, the questionable messages can be refused after receiving only the IP address of the sending server, therefore not incurring the bulk of the cost for the connection.

Two, if the message is spammy, there is no effective way to refuse the message and let the sender know that their message will not be seen.

With a DNSBL, chosen by the administrator with the knowledge of the users, any messages not accepted will be either returned to the sender by the senders own server (in the case of valid messages) or simply dropped into thin air (in the case of a zombie machine which does not have that capability).

The valid user will then be aware they are on a blocklist and try and fix whatever caused the block, and/or contact the recipient and try to get added to a whitelist to allow the message through.

because you all know, that we are not the first victim in SORBS´ list.

While I will freely admit that any list is going to have mistakes, I have no evidence and I don't know (as you put it) that any IP range has ever been listed on SORBS for a single report against a single IP as you allege. If that were the case, I am sure there would be a record of it somewhere on the internet. You don't need to provide the IP address of your organization if you don't want (though I don't know why it would be irresponsible, it is a publically accessible IP address afterall), just the IP address of a documented mistake of the same kind.

[Miss Betsy]

I agree with Steven that the use of spamassassin is not as good as a DNSBL. Partly because most people cannot use it to reject messages at the server level so that if there is a false positive (and there are), the sender is not notified.

And also partly because it filters on 'content' It is not the content of email that should be rejected. Email should be rejected because it was not requested. What one person wants may not be what another person wants. DNSBL's put the responsibility for dealing with spam on the *sender* not the recipient. If the *sender* is not guilty of sending unsolicited email, then either it is a mistake that can quickly be fixed (even that entails paying a fineor stopping a trojanized computer), or the *sender* is using an admin who is incompetent or irresponsible. The *sending* end is the only place where the spammer can effectively be stopped and it is up to *senders* to choose responsible internet email service.

I don't know anything about dealing with SORB. If there were truly a mistake, then it is not a very effective blocklist that will not correct mistakes. OTOH, a mistake that resulted in the sending of spam is NOT one that should be corrected just because the sender didn't mean to and says I am sorry.

From what you have said about SORBS, IMHO, there is nothing unethical at all about the blocklist. No one has to use it. Why are you not complaining to the people who are using it? Perhaps, they prefer to use it because it is effective.

Nazis 'force' people to do things. No one is forcing anyone to use the blocklist. No one is forcing anyone to pay the fine. There are other ways to communicate on the internet if you don't want to pay the fine. No one is keeping you from using them.

And that's the best thing about DNSBL's - everything is above board. If your email is rejected, you know about it (unlike disappearing in content filter). There are clear remedies to fix the problem that caused the rejection. Nothing is censored because they are not based on content, but on competence and responsibility.

Miss Betsy

[nicejerk]

Hi again, sorry I could not stay away any longer.

I was hoping to spare you for any further comments. But as I have found some more interesting information, I would like to share these with you. First, if you have the time, please read read this page http://www.dotcomeon.com/ . That paper is analyzing Paul Vixie, but if you read the article carefully, you will see the parallells and questionable legitimazy of SORBS´ list (rather users of the list). The legal issues quoted in the article, should be enough to discurrage serious Service Providers from using DNSBL. The author (NetSide) seems to look at this problem the same way I do, but phrases it a lot better. But it is an interesting reading.

You do realize that SpamCop is another DNSBL and not associated with SORBS at all except that the email service can utilize their list as well, correct?

Yes, and as I stated before, I can only recommend spamcop and spamhaus, as they seem responsible in taking actions and cooperating in tracking down spammers and abusers.

Now that I see you are pushing the spamassassin solution, I can give you a rebuttal. The thread here is more of you thinking aloud and using our rebuttals to formulate your opinion. I don't see where you could have swayed anyone's opinion without proof of anything.

Maybe our discussion didn´t sway anyone´s opinion, but it sure helped me to come to a conclusion regarding SORBS/Mr. Sullivan. Thinking aloud is rightly phrased by you and there has been response on this board because of that. I think readers have the right to read about problems that can occur using SORBS´ list and the totally unreasonable response and attitude they might face, trying to communicate with Mr. Sullivan. SORBS´ list is “hand made in Australia” and humans make mistakes and Mr. Sullivan is not perfect. I only mentioned SpamAssassin, as the author of the respective article pointed out, what seems to be a very effctive solution with no DNSBL. But if that solution works, I have no idea about, but then SpamAssassin is also a differnet topic.

Talking about proofs/swaying: Proofs can be circumstancial and what you read (Internet, newspaper etc.), you have to judge for yourself what might or might not be true. Your experience will help you to sort out the “truth”. I have stated my opinion on Mr. Sullivan, based on my inquieries on the Internet. I only browsed the Inernet, looking for possible answers to our problem, caused by SORBS and note: without a cause from our side. In my quest, I came across some extreamly vulgar/abusive language in many of Mr. Sullivans´ replies to inqueries. I will not blame Mr. Sullivan to use a bad language to express himself, but when he is putting people down with abusive language in replies, then I can not help but to protest. There were a few articles on the Internet that helped me to assemble a profile of this person (convincing and explanatory to me at least). And in this finding, I am simply stunned by the fact, some companies are using SORBS´ list and thereby supporting Mr. Sullivans way of extortion. But on the other hand, whenever we buy software or service, I never question the background of the developer(s), until now. Thanks to Mr. Sullivan. (So he is not that-all-bad).I didn´t come here to prosecute Mr. Sullivan, but I came here to find a solution to our problem. I have posted my conclusion, based on sources found on the Internet, and since then, found further material that supports my conclusion. But it is all a matter of how we interpretate our readings, so everyone must judge for him-/herself.

One argument against SpamAssassin for many configurations is COST. Many busineses pay for internet access by the amount of traffic we receive. With spamassassin, my servers need to accept the entire message in order to scan it, paying for that privlidge.

I agree with you. It´s a matter of cost, bandwidth/load and quota. In each case you will have to decide what solution to use, but I am sure there are many more than DNSBL and SpamAssassin. For our business, I think it would be bad to use a DNSBL, as that might prevent potential customers from reaching us. With filters and rules, one can limit the amount of spam to reach it´s destination, but to blindly block a range of IPs by a list made by a 3rd party, looks to be a pretty ignorant solution to me. At the same time, one is actually “trying to move” the responsibility of blocking/filtration to this third party. spam will never disappear from the Internet, but we can only limit it. No doubt, I may have used some reasonable DNSBL on mail servers, if I administred any, but on the other hand, I would never use SORBS´ list and for that sake, any DNSBL, after my experience/findings. SORBS has given DNSBL a bad name, which will keep me sceptical of others similar.

The valid user will then be aware they are on a blocklist and try and fix whatever caused the block, and/or contact the recipient and try to get added to a whitelist to allow the message through.

Our option is to pay “Joey”, but I do not approve of that, and we got whitelisted where we needed. But that will not change the fact that we will not receive inquries from potential customers, which´s mail server uses SORBS´ blocklist. I am wondering if to put a warning on our site, explaining how to contact us in case of failed mail delivery.

………..that any IP range has ever been listed on SORBS for a single report against a single IP as you allege. If that were the case, I am sure there would be a record of it somewhere on the internet. ……just the IP address of a documented mistake of the same kind.

After learning more about Mr. Sullivan, I believe he might block all the IPs of our Service Provider, if I posted our mail server´s IP here. That would be irrisponsible. I will let our mail server administrator know about your wish, and the person can decide if to contact you or not. We are serviced in the best possible manner, and I really would regret if my writing would give them any further trouble than that, of the consequenses of the Link X-changers.

I agree with Steven that the use of spamassassin is not as good as a DNSBL. Partly because most people cannot use it to reject messages at the server level so that if there is a false positive (and there are), the sender is not notified.

Again, that way to tackle spam must depend on the business you are doing. We welcome inqueries on our produts and manufacturing, and as such, respective e-mails should NOT be rejected because it was not requested. Some of those e-mails might now be rejected because of SORBS. (**).

DNSBL's put the responsibility for dealing with spam on the *sender* not the recipient. If the *sender* is not guilty of sending unsolicited email, then either it is a mistake that can quickly be fixed (even that entails paying a fineor stopping a trojanized computer), or the *sender* is using an admin who is incompetent or irresponsible.

Well, if we were to pay US$ 50,- for nothing we have done, so why don´t you just pay it? You are just as guilty as we are. Just pay it to “Joey”. I´d rather through US$50,- out of the window (as that would help), than officially supporting a vulger vigilante "at work”. Participating and supproting unethical SORBS? No. We do have some reputation to protect and preserve, so we can not support Mr. Sullivans actions.

I don't know anything about dealing with SORB. If there were truly a mistake, then it is not a very effective blocklist that will not correct mistakes.

That is my point. SORBS is unreasonable. You can not communicate with the Mr. Sullivan. Communication is a vital factor in solving problems, but there is non from Mr. Sullivan. That is why I point to spamcop and spamhaus, if you really think blocklists are a must. Thay are reasonable.

Why are you not complaining to the people who are using it? Perhaps, they prefer to use it because it is effective.

That is exactly what I did, contacting the user of the list. The list might be "too effective" regarding blocking, but you will have to judge for yourself.

There are other ways to communicate on the internet if you don't want to pay the fine. No one is keeping you from using them.

Tell me more………….

(**) Just a point in other direction: With “Senders´ notification” you now come to another point of discussion started by F-Prot manager/president: producing unnecessary e-mail traffic on the Internet. In my first thread in this forum, I was seeking solution to overwhelming flow of e-mails, infected by Sober.g, from a certain IP no. Because the Sobig.g spoofs it´s “where from” in the header, then we were also receiving endless "virus warning replies” from mail servers, almost as many as that, of the worm infected e-mails. In a way, one can defined those replies as spam. A least, those replies from mail servers were a total waste of bandwidth in the Sobig.g case.

Best regards to you,

nicejerk

[Merlyn]

Please do not feed the Troll.......

[StevenUnderwood]

But that will not change the fact that we will not receive inquries from potential customers, which´s mail server uses SORBS´ blocklist.

You have again shown you don't understand what you are talking about. The fact you are on SORBS does not inhibit you from receiving anything. It may inhibit who you can send to because they may be blocking you, but you should get a bounce and contact them another way.

Some of those e-mails might now be rejected because of SORBS

Again, unless YOU are using SORBS, no messages TO you will be blocked.

With “Senders´ notification” you now come to another point of discussion started by F-Prot manager/president: producing unnecessary e-mail traffic on the Internet. ...

The "Senders' notification we are talking about are not generated by the receiving machine. By using a DNSBL and refusing the message, the reason for refusal is returned to the sending machine and the sending machine (who should know the sender) generates the error message to the sender.

The receiving server can not relialbly send an error message directly to the sender for the very reasons you mention.

[Miss Betsy]

QUOTE 

DNSBL's put the responsibility for dealing with spam on the *sender* not the recipient. If the *sender* is not guilty of sending unsolicited email, then either it is a mistake that can quickly be fixed (even that entails paying a fineor stopping a trojanized computer), or the *sender* is using an admin who is incompetent or irresponsible. 

Well, if we were to pay US$ 50,- for nothing we have done, so why don´t you just pay it? You are just as guilty as we are. Just pay it to “Joey”. I´d rather through US$50,- out of the window (as that would help), than officially supporting a vulger vigilante "at work”. Participating and supproting unethical SORBS? No. We do have some reputation to protect and preserve, so we can not support Mr. Sullivans actions.

Actually, I think one of my ISP's did pay the fine - when I pointed out to them that my email did not go through because the recipient was using SORBS. The other one is more competent and more responsible and, so far, has taken care of spam problems quickly enough that they have not attracted SORBS attention.

I see no reason why I should pay for your ISP's inattention and non responsiveness.

(**) Just a point in other direction: With “Senders´ notification” you now come to another point of discussion started by F-Prot manager/president: producing unnecessary e-mail traffic on the Internet. In my first thread in this forum, I was seeking solution to overwhelming flow of e-mails, infected by Sober.g, from a certain IP no. Because the Sobig.g spoofs it´s “where from” in the header, then we were also receiving endless "virus warning replies” from mail servers, almost as many as that, of the worm infected e-mails. In a way, one can defined those replies as spam. A least, those replies from mail servers were a total waste of bandwidth in the Sobig.g case

.

This has nothing to do with DNSBL's. It is only another example of adminstrators who do not keep up with current events and use email 'bounce' messages to the returnpath which is forged. The difference is that DNSBL's /reject/ the email at the server level and the 'bounce' returns to the sender who sent it.

And for once you are correct - virus warning replies are identical to spam - they are unsolicited email. And because they often go to spamtraps, 'innocent' people who believe the anti-virus company get listed on DNSBL's. You want to 'excuse' them also?

Miss Betsy

[nicejerk]

I have read enaugh about Mr. Sullivan and I hope this is the last time I need to refer to him.

You can read som more on that, that made me come to the conclusion. I am finished with this subject, and will not make any further replies. I promise.

Some of this is really funny stuff (but serious though), like when Osirusoft shut down on the the world: http://www.dotcomeon.com/injoewetrust.html

Reg. legal issues, then I want to point out to you the following cases:

Media3 case: http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/12_877011

BlackIce http://www.ifn.net/classic/blckice2.htm

And not least:

U.S. District Judge John Kane found that MAPS, in adding 24/7 Exactis to the RBL, was "irresponsible." He ordered MAPS and any others acting in concert with MAPS to remove 24/7 Media from the RBL, and to rescind any comments to ISPs that state or suggest that 24/7 Media sends spam. Judge Kane also found that MAPS' actions deprived consumers of e-mail they had requested.

Read more about it here: http://www.ifn.net/classic/247media

For example, Paul Vixie hosts SORBS, an Australian blacklist on his ISC.ORG company. SORBS has been booted from other American ISPs, and the operator, Matthew Sullivan has had other sites (isux.com) booted for AUP violations such as threats of mailbombing "spammers"…………….. Mr.  Sullivan's attention, he first replied that 'he is not responsible for SORBS'. When this was refuted, he said that he had no assets, and challenged me to sue or contribute.

For another example, consider Alan Brown of ORBS. ORBS was booted by Canadian ISP for abuse even before Mr. Brown took control of it. Mr. Brown has lost 3 separate lawsuits involving issues of defamation and false statements. 2 of the lawsuits involved ORBS making false statements about ISPs that Mr. Brown did not like. None of this was made clear to ORBS users when they subscribed…….

Read more about it here: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf...t/msg29620.html

I concider SPEW and SORBS as more or less the same “service” with different names as Mr. Sullivan states at the bottom: http://www.santabarbaraproperties.com/casa/TwinTowers.html

If in any doubt, then here are some good explanations to some of the lists: http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/2003sepoct/...mTechnology.htm

Anti SPEW: http://www.ifn.net/classic/rblstory.htm + links

Victims: http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/c...5232.story?coll

Almost too sarcastic: http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1605 + many good links

Honesty is best: http://www.lanechange.net/html/spews.shtml

Some more reasons: http://www.clapper.org/spam/spews.html

1 more victim http://stopspam.sysop.com/

Thank you for your time,

Best regards,

nicejerk

[Adminworker]

I to would like to add my frustration with Sobes. Have been on thier list for a long time. My Isp and myself have sent numerous email to them asking how we could get off. To start with we are a large company and I can not say for sure if the piece of email came from us. Have checked all possibilites but found very little to say it has. It would have had to come from infected workstation is it did. Ok 1 spam old old and yes very old and still on the list. We would have probably paid the fine if they would have replyed just to get it over with. Now no.. Only 1 instance was a problem and when I sent link to here and to FCC they decided not longer to use Sobes and all is well. How can someone like that not even bother with replying. The power wow...

As someone who rejects over 82% percent of email coming in due to spam I know the important of spamcop and other legit spam blocker. but Sorbes is not it.

[Merlyn]

I to would like to add my frustration with Sobes. Have been on thier list for a long time. My Isp and myself have sent numerous email to them asking how we could get off. To start with we are a large company and I can not say for sure if the piece of email came from us. Have checked all possibilites but found very little to say it has. It would have had to come from infected workstation is it did. Ok 1 spam old old and yes very old and still on the list. We would have probably paid the fine if they would have replyed just to get it over with. Now no.. Only 1 instance was a problem and when I sent link to here and to FCC they decided not longer to use Sobes and all is well. How can someone like that not even bother with replying. The power wow...

As someone who rejects over 82% percent of email coming in due to spam I know the important of spamcop and other legit spam blocker. but Sorbes is not it.

Did you read their faq?

Did you use their contact form?

I find it hard to believe they did not contact you back if you followed their procedures.

[Adminworker]

Did you read their faq?

Did you use their contact form?

I find it hard to believe they did not contact you back if you followed their procedures.

Yes both my ISP and I have tried numerous times in many ways. Created an account and everything we could and still no reply. I have since added packet sniffer and other items. As I told them I had consultants here,,,many,, and they guaranteed it did not come from email server. workstaions are locked out of most ports so it would be hard to get them to also. I do not understand why no response besides the automated email from them saying they got my information.

[DavidT]

they guaranteed it did not come from email server

If you provide us with the IP address of the mail server, some of us could do a little searching here and there to see if we find anything. For example, we could look up the stats in the SenderBase system, which is often very enlightening.

DT

[turetzsr]

If you provide us with the IP address of the mail server, some of us could do a little searching here and there to see if we find anything. For example, we could look up the stats in the SenderBase system, which is often very enlightening.

...Or you could do you own research. Senderbase is available to all at URL http://www.senderbase.org/.

[StevenUnderwood]

Yes both my ISP and I have tried numerous times in many ways. Created an account and everything we could and still no reply. I have since added packet sniffer and other items. As I told them I had consultants here,,,many,, and they guaranteed it did not come from email server. workstaions are locked out of most ports so it would be hard to get them to also. I do not understand why no response besides the automated email from them saying they got my information.

Well, the IP you posted this message from is listed on SORBS for sending an email message:

Address: 208.151.246.227

Record Created: Mon Mar 3 00:54:42 2008 GMT

Record Updated: Mon Mar 3 00:54:42 2008 GMT

Additional Information: [ Submitted via: Report 'o Matic ] Received: from 208-151-246-227.dq1sn.easystreet.com (208-151-246-227.dq1sn.easystreet.com [208.151.246.227]) by desperado.sorbs.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F86114AF for <>; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:56:40 +1000 (EST)

Are you posting from your email server or are all your hosts behind one IP address? Have you checked all firewall logs?

Senderbase information for that IP shows a monthly average of about 200 messages. Is that what is expected?

Volume Statistics for this IP

Magnitude Vol Change vs. Last Month

Last day 0.0 N/A

Last month 2.3