n4af Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Looks like liquid web has been a blackhat for a LONG time. My question is I keep reporting the same sequence of email origination: Tracking message source: 67.227.164.146: Routing details for 67.227.164.146 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 67.227.164.146 : abuse[at]liquidweb.com Using abuse net on abuse[at]liquidweb.com abuse net liquidweb.com = admin[at]sourcedns.com, ipadmin[at]liquidweb.com, abuse[at]sourcedns.com, lisa[at]webclickhosting.com Using best contacts admin[at]sourcedns.com ipadmin[at]liquidweb.com abuse[at]sourcedns.com lisa[at]webclickhosting.com Yum, this spam is fresh! Message is 0 hours old 67.227.164.146 not listed in cbl.abuseat.org 67.227.164.146 not listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net 67.227.164.146 not listed in accredit.habeas.com 67.227.164.146 not listed in plus.bondedsender.org 67.227.164.146 not listed in iadb.isipp.com How is it conceivable/possible in this universe that they are not on a B.L. ??? Is it worth continuing to report them ??? I guess I do not understand how this works, gotta believe I am not the only one reporting this steady string of spam. BlackLotus and CC, I understand but how does the above ORIGINATOR of spam stay off the list ???? Is there any value to keep reporting them ??? Thanks, Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Um...I think the post above got moved this morning by a forum admin, but now it's back here where it started, because the folks who did the moving didn't turn the old forums off after taking a snapshot. Hmmmmmmmm..... DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lking Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Seems to be true DT and of course my lost response to the OP was in depth, insightfull, ... yea right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Moved again. Lking had responded to this saying something like all reports contribute towards getting the individual IP addresses on the blocklist (if/once there is sufficient weight against those addresses). That post seems to have been lost in transition to the "new" forum. Part of the story is that the ratio of spam to regular mail handled by that IP comes into the consideration. Another part is that spam hitting SC spamtraps has much more weight than member reports - if the spam is avoiding spamtraps it will need (at least) several members reporting the same IP within a short timespan, one of the order of 2 days. SCbl listings when they do occur are of short duration once the spam stops being reported. It is always a good idea to keep reporting, if able to do so. Stopping will considerably reduce the liklihood of 'bad' IP addresses being listed or of keeping them listed once their (comparatively excessive) spam activity has 'earned' them listing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 ...to fill in more of what got lost: I seem to remember the OP coming back and posting more evidence, and asking why they still weren't on the SCbl, but then I looked up the IP in question and discovered that it's indeed made it onto the SCbl. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.