Jump to content

eaolson

Members
  • Posts

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by eaolson

  1. Which is a pretty meaningless statement on behalf of the presenters. It seems a given that the amount of spam in the world is increasing. So users would receive more spam whether or not they followed the links in their spam. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
  2. I just want to say that that's in really bad taste.
  3. I have one persistent spammer sending me various offers. When I first parse these spams, the reporting addresses are various addresses at omeda.com, which is the spammer. These addresses apparently bounce, so they get redirected to devnull. When I look at the routing details, which I think refreshes the information, the parser comes up with an abuse address of abuse[at]sprint.net. When I re-parse the spam, reports then go to sprint.net rather than devnull. (For all the fat lot of good that will do.) My concern is that this isn't a one-time thing. It happens every time. This is the only spammer I've seen this sort of behavior. Is this expected behavior for the parser, or should I bring this up on spamcop.routing and ask for an override? Example: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z744853425zbe...94b5c5ec586a11z
  4. Why would anyone require your permission to link to your website? That's sort of the whole point of the WWW. If you don't want your stuff publically accessible, don't put it on a web page.
  5. Ah, here is is. www.sixpacksex.com (68.142.234.39). Trimmed a bit, here's the whois: Trying 68.142.234 at ARIN OrgName: Inktomi Corporation OrgID: INKT Address: 4100 East Third Avenue City: Foster City StateProv: CA PostalCode: 94404 Country: US NetRange: 68.142.192.0 - 68.142.255.255 CIDR: 68.142.192.0/18 NetName: INKTOMI-BLK-4 [...] AbuseHandle: ZI107-ARIN AbuseName: Inktomi Corporation AbusePhone: +1-650-653-2800 AbuseEmail: slurp[at]inktomi.com ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ OrgTechHandle: ZI35-ARIN OrgTechName: Inktomi Corporation OrgTechPhone: +1-650-653-2800 OrgTechEmail: l3-ops[at]inktomi.com Is there some reason to think this abuse address is inappropriate? I notice that an abuse.net lookup of inkomi does NOT return the slurp[at] address.
  6. I'm not so sure about that, Wazoo. Just a few days ago, I came across a whois entry that directed abuse complaints to slurp[at]inktomi.com. I didn't know that about the Inktomi crawler, but thought it odd at the time it wasn't abuse[at] Unfortunately, I can't remember what I was looking up, so I can't show you.
  7. If the spam itself is explicit, I'd agree. (I like your analogy better, anyway.) On the other hand, I really didn't need the mental image of Ralsky exposing himself to me. Excuse me while I go wash my brain out with soap.
  8. I'd like to see that about email marketing in general. To an adult, I figure it's the equivalent of some guy hitting on you in a bar. Sleazy, rude, yes, but not illegal. Pity there's no email equivalent of throwing a drink in someone's face. Willfully (or negligently) doing the same to children is an entirely different matter.
  9. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to go after a spammer for sending such adult materials to children. There's probably some legal hooha about "explicit" vs. "pornographic" and they could certainly claim that they didn't know the recipient was a minor, but I don't know how much legal weight that would hold. The various authorities seem to have trouble going after spammers on technical grounds, probably for a number of reasons. I wonder if the situation would be different if they were going after spammers for "contributing to the deliquency of a minor" or something similar.
  10. The article first mentions that Global Crossing was the first to blackhole the site. As I recall, they bought XO some time ago. (Right?) XO is currently #8 on Spamhaus's top ten spammers list. Maybe they're doing the blackholing not because the site is unethical, but because it endangers their business model? Now, how about a discussion about the ethics of a backbone making editorial decision about what content can or can not be viewed by its customers?
  11. Actually, it does. If you put just the obfuscated URL into the spam submittal box and process it, it will strip out most URL redirects, and deobfuscate the URL. It won't find 302 redirects, but that doesn't seem to apply to the OP's problem.
  12. True, but if there are a few spamtraps sprinkled in a list that could possibly contain millions of email addresses, it would take quite a while to make your way through it. To answer your original question, the spamtraps are not static.
  13. And yet I (and I assume the rest of you) will continue to use it. Who cares what they think? Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, myself. I was amused by the OP's complaint about listing "entire servers." What would he prefer, just blocking the even numbered bits?
  14. And I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just always amused (and somewhat frustrated) when I hear one politician or another say that importing drugs from Canada is such a wonderful idea. Ummm, no. It's not helping the problem, it's ignoring it. We're not really importing their drugs, we're importing their healthcare system.
  15. ...Another example of how the Libertarians are right -- government regulation ****s us over, again! <g> 16779[/snapback] Just to throw my $0.02 in, I'd like to point out that the only reason said drugs are cheaper in Canada is because of government regulation. If Canada didn't have a more socialzed health care system than the USA, those drugs wouldn't be as cheap as they are.
  16. Fact: The IP address 66.225.216.131 is not on the SCBL or any other blacklist I can find. Question: Now what?
  17. I read the subject line and wondered if Spamcop had branched into spam reporting and marriage counseling.
  18. Has the BL changed to list entire IP blocks or is it still listing just spam-sending IPs? I think you may be thinking of SPEWS. By the way, you also have a major problem there: http://spews.org/html/S333.html So you're saying that an ISP that uses one mail server for many domains should get a free pass on the spam issue? What finer granularity other than individual IPs is there?
  19. The only one that has tampered with your email is YOU, you blithering idiot. Getting abusive rants from people that are listed in the SCBL I can understand. Forgive, no. Understand, yes. But from someone who is implementing it? That just boggles the mind.
  20. Um, actually it refutes everything he had been saying. You don't have to prove anything. You're not listed. You're not being accused of anything (other than being hotheaded). You're the one that started this thread. If I understand your original problem correctly, you're the one doing the blocking. Or your ISP is, same thing. SpamCop is 100% accountable to the only people that matter: it's users. If it weren't trustworthy and responsible, no one would use it, and it would no longer exist. The problem seems to be that you, or someone acting as your agent, has implemented bouncing email using the SpamCop blacklist. SpamCop has no control over that. Furthermore, you haven't provided enough information to determine whether or not any IP address was correctly or incorrectly listed. What exactly do you want us to do?
  21. Then call ipowerweb. From what I understand, you or they are bouncing incoming email as spam. The strange part is that none of the domains you mentioned (rainbowgrace.com, fairnessproject.org, and william.jewell.edu) appear to be listed by Spamcop. They have, and they're accountable to themselves. Getting snitty isn't going to help your case any. If you are bouncing emails, but have your spam filtering turned off, the problem is with your configuration or your ISP. Talk to them. You've already said you have spam filtering turned off, so I wouldn't expect your inbox to look any differently.
  22. It's good to see that someone is actually studying the problem in a methodical manner, but this paragraph has me flummoxed: I can't decide if they're trying to explain to the lay person what they did, using such small words it has become incomprehensible, or if they have no idea what they're talking about in the first place.
  23. What, precisely, is an "obtain mailing list?" One that has been obtained from a third party? Plagiarism is reproducing and claiming another's work as your own. Unless you're claiming to have written Wazoo's first paragraph, you are quite mistaken.
  24. Apoligies if this should go to the newsgroups instead; I don't have a news client here at work. As I recall, Spamcop strips out redirected URLs to report the actual target link, not the redirector itself. I just came across the following link in a spam: http://www.aol.com/ams/clickThruRedirect.a...com/?partid=s23 Hmm, the forum software messes that up. The last part of the URL is: www.aol.com/ams/clickThruRedirect.adp [...] 2147862773x2147592545,http://pharmacyfuture.com/?partid=s23 Which parses as: It seems to me that pharmacyfuture.com is the real offender here.
  25. I *think* it was a third party deal, yeah. I'd parse it again, but I don't think I have it any more. I'll post again with details if it ever comes up again.
×
×
  • Create New...