wightman.admin Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 One of our mailservers had the misfortune to get listed yesterday. When I check the website it says the ip is no longer listed. When I query bl.spamcop.net it is still there. How long before the two systems are synced. Thanks. Scott Cunningham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 In the FAQ, links at the top of the page, Pinned item in each Forum section, tagged with a "read before posting" .... under the BL sections, is an entry NEW! SCBL "will be delisted in 0 hours" (now shown as 'in a short time') explained that is one attempt to explain. Recall that it took just as long for it to show up as listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wightman.admin Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 In the FAQ, links at the top of the page, Pinned item in each Forum section, tagged with a "read before posting" .... under the BL sections, is an entry NEW! SCBL "will be delisted in 0 hours" (now shown as 'in a short time') explained that is one attempt to explain. Recall that it took just as long for it to show up as listed. 31948[/snapback] When I check the IP it shows it as not being listed not "will be delisted". http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...216.110.227.151 Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahenry Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 When I check the IP it shows it as not being listed not "will be delisted". http://www.spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblo...216.110.227.151 Thanks 31950[/snapback] That's exactly the same problem I'm having at the moment. 3 of my 4 servers were listed (quite legitimately, I might add, several of our clients got infected with zotob & were spewing spam *sigh* they were blocked & cleaned up within a few hours). When I checked the listings yesterday morning at 9:30 (GMT -0700) they were all set to be delisted within 3 hours. One was delisted on schedule. The other two never fell off the list (and the www.spamcop.net was down so I couldn't check their status). Now spamcop.net says they're not listed, but they're still in DNS (and these aren't just cached records, I did a lookup directly on blns20 to make sure) The IPs in question are 142.32.11.116, and 142.32.11.109 (142.32.11.96 was delisted yesterday on schedule) I'm content to wait a few hours, but I'm concerned that if they were supposed to come off 20+ hours ago, and haven't yet, then they might not at all? If there were additional reports on those machines, then I have more heads to break, but there shouldn't have been... Thanks for any help anyone might be able to give. (edited for clarity) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek T Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Parsing input: 216.110.227.151 host 216.110.227.151 (getting name) = server01.gorrie.wightman.ca. [report history] ISP does not wish to receive report regarding 216.110.227.151 ISP does not wish to receive reports regarding 216.110.227.151 - no date available Routing details for 216.110.227.151 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 216.110.227.151 : admin[at]wightman.ca Using abuse net on admin[at]wightman.ca abuse net wightman.ca = admin[at]wightman.ca, abuse[at]wightman.ca Using best contacts admin[at]wightman.ca abuse[at]wightman.ca Statistics: 216.110.227.151 not listed in bl.spamcop.net More Information.. 216.110.227.151 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org 216.110.227.151 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org 216.110.227.151 not listed in cbl.abuseat.org 216.110.227.151 not listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net 216.110.227.151 not listed in relays.ordb.org. Perhaps if you opted to receive reports you'd know more! Report History: Submitted: Sunday, August 21, 2005 12:04:56 +0100: =?iso-8859-1?Q?VIAGRR=E1-Really_Works_Good?= * 1492618105 ( 216.110.227.151 ) To: admin[at]wightman.ca * 1492618104 ( 216.110.227.151 ) To: abuse[at]wightman.ca SpamCop was dopwn for a few hours for maintenance yesterday - that MAY have slowed propogation to the mirrors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Query sent upstream, but believe the answer is in fact the maintenance downtime from yesterday. The conjectured 6-8 hours turned into something quite a but longer, and as seen in the Announcements entry, the Parsing & Reporting system is running hard to catch up on the backlog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahenry Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Query sent upstream, but believe the answer is in fact the maintenance downtime from yesterday. [snip] 31954[/snapback] Ok. Thank you for your quick reply. I read that message about maintenance, but couldn't figure out that the Parsing & Reporting system would have an effect on the delisting of IP addresses. I guess I'll wait for either more information or for the addresses to fall off the list. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wightman.admin Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 Parsing input: 216.110.227.151 host 216.110.227.151 (getting name) = server01.gorrie.wightman.ca. [report history] ISP does not wish to receive report regarding 216.110.227.151 ISP does not wish to receive reports regarding 216.110.227.151 - no date available Routing details for 216.110.227.151 {snip} I've checked my SpamCop ISP account settings and all the settings are correct to accept reports. Is there someplace else I need to go to change that?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek T Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I've checked my SpamCop ISP account settings and all the settings are correct to accept reports. Is there someplace else I need to go to change that?? 31959[/snapback] Another one for 'upstream' Wazoo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Another one for 'upstream' Wazoo? 31961[/snapback] Done .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I've checked my SpamCop ISP account settings and all the settings are correct to accept reports. Is there someplace else I need to go to change that?? 31959[/snapback] I was assuming it was something you did when you received one of the reports, selecting something like "Issue Resolved" which usually shows up in the parse. With the upgrade, we don't know what broke new and what was broke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahenry Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Ok. Thank you for your quick reply. I read that message about maintenance, but couldn't figure out that the Parsing & Reporting system would have an effect on the delisting of IP addresses. I guess I'll wait for either more information or for the addresses to fall off the list. Thanks again. 31956[/snapback] To reply to myself: The issue is resolved. My IPs just came off the blacklist, now I just have to wait for the TTL to expire on people's DNS servers... Thanks again for your help, everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wightman.admin Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 To reply to myself: The issue is resolved. My IPs just came off the blacklist, now I just have to wait for the TTL to expire on people's DNS servers... Thanks again for your help, everyone. 31968[/snapback] My entry is gone too. Thanks guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I've checked my SpamCop ISP account settings and all the settings are correct to accept reports. Is there someplace else I need to go to change that?? 31959[/snapback] OK, per Richard .... there was a spam complaint submitted. ISP handled that, selecting an option to "turn off further reports" .... In this case, this set a 24 hour flag against future reporting. Unfortunately, thus flag setting also apparently gets included in the "IP lookup function" so all queries resulted in showing the "does not wish to accept" message. Allowing time to pass, http://www.spamcop.net/sc?track=216.110.227.151 now lacks this bit of text. So this should explain why wightman.admin checked settngs and found no blockage flags, but "we" were seeing the referenced "refusal" message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.