Blocklisting
RBas
which runs Backscatterer.org and my IP comes back clean/not listed.
Yet Backscatterer.org still has my IP listed. I tried backscatterer's
online utility to test/remove my IP from there list and I get This IP
IS CURRENTLY LISTED in our Database. Of course you can pay to get
express delisting. My question is my UCEPROTECT show me not listed and
backscatterer.org shows me listed when UCEPROTECT runs
backscatterer.org? Why is there no easy way to get this resolved
unless you pay????
--
Comments posted to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
are solely the responsibility of their author. Please
read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at
http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
Fred Mobach
> I think backscatterer.org site is crap/scam. I checked UCEPROTECT,
> which runs Backscatterer.org and my IP comes back clean/not listed.
You're talking about two distinc lists where IP addresses are listed :
In uceprotect.net : because of sending spam.
In backscatterer.org : because of sending backscatter.
> Yet Backscatterer.org still has my IP listed. I tried backscatterer's
> online utility to test/remove my IP from there list and I get This IP
> IS CURRENTLY LISTED in our Database. Of course you can pay to get
> express delisting.
In general delisting of backscatterer.org is not needed, or you are
sending mail messages to a server which admin decided to use
backscatterer.org for blocklisting of e-mail. Which is, as stated on
the website of backscatterer.org, an error.
> My question is my UCEPROTECT show me not listed and
> backscatterer.org shows me listed when UCEPROTECT runs
> backscatterer.org?
So it seems that you didn't send spam but bounces. Correct ?
> Why is there no easy way to get this resolved unless you pay????
No need to pay, clever admins never block mail based on
backscatterer.org and the delisting policy is (in my opinion) quite
fast. Beware however, not all admins are so clever to read the webpages
of a blocklist. ;-)
--
Fred Mobach - fr...@mobach.nl
website : https://fred.mobach.nl
.... In God we trust ....
.. The rest we monitor ..
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
> My question is my UCEPROTECT show me not listed
> and backscatterer.org shows me listed
> when UCEPROTECT runs backscatterer.org?
Different criteria for each DNSbl, same spamtraps.
> Why is there no easy way to get this resolved
> unless you pay????
Stop hitting their spamtraps, and wait.
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Anitech-Systems.com>
will be added to the BlackLists.
Daniel Weber
> My question is my UCEPROTECT show me not listed and
> backscatterer.org shows me listed when UCEPROTECT runs
> backscatterer.org?
UCEPROTECT runs several blacklists, _one_ of them is backscatterer.org.
You are listed only on backscatterer.org.
> Why is there no easy way to get this resolved unless you pay????
There is a easy way: Don't send backscatter anymore and wait until the
listing expires.
If you are sure, that your systems won't send anymore backscatter, you
can buy express-delisting, but as soon as you again send backscatter,
you have the risk of being relisted.
If express-delisting wouldn't cost anything, people wouldn't fix there
systems but just always "press the button" to get delisted without
thinking about it anymore.
Bye,
Daniel
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
10/13/2009
at 12:31 PM, RBas <rb6...@gmail.com> said:
>I think backscatterer.org site is crap/scam.
Then don't use it. Those better informed than you don't care.
>I checked UCEPROTECT,
>which runs Backscatterer.org and my IP comes back clean/not listed.
K3wl. That doesn't mean what you believe it to mean.
>Yet Backscatterer.org still has my IP listed.
Then fix your mail server.
>My question is my UCEPROTECT show me not listed and
>backscatterer.org shows me listed when UCEPROTECT runs
>backscatterer.org?
It doesn't matter who runs either list; they're different lists, with
different criteria. If the Public Health Service had a list of people with
Swine Flu and another list of people with Malaria, would you expect to
find the same names on both?
>Why is there no easy way to get this resolved unless you pay????
The way to get it resolved is to fix your server. The payment for express
delisting is to be done after that, not instead of it.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
MrD
> I think backscatterer.org site is crap/scam.
Opinions are an inexpensive commodity, I have found.
> I checked UCEPROTECT, which runs Backscatterer.org and my IP comes
> back clean/not listed.
Good.
> Yet Backscatterer.org still has my IP listed.
Oh dear. Apparently they are different lists.
> I tried backscatterer's online utility to test/remove my IP from
> there list and I get This IP IS CURRENTLY LISTED in our Database. Of
> course you can pay to get express delisting. My question is my
> UCEPROTECT show me not listed and backscatterer.org shows me listed
> when UCEPROTECT runs backscatterer.org?
As you have discovered, they are different lists, with different listing
criteria. It seems you are listed for backscattering, but not for spamming.
> Why is there no easy way to get this resolved unless you pay????
There is no easy way to get this resolved *even if you do pay*. That is,
unless you resolve the underlying problem, then paying money will only
make you angry (because you'll just get listed again).
It seems that ensuring that your servers don't emit backscatter is not
so easy - at least, a lot of people seem to come here to explain why
it's difficult for them.
Put simply, you have to ensure that your servers don't send messages
from <> to unknown email addresses. Such messages are usually
non-delivery reports or vacation messages, and they are a problem when
they are sent to addresses found in spam mail (such as the From:
address). If you can stop your servers doing that, you should fall off
the list automatically after a week (no payment). If you can't avoid
sending such messages, then you can't count on staying off the list,
even if you pay.
Note that the list is only meant for blocking backscatter; it's not a
spammer blacklist, and it only makes sense to consult it in connection
with messages from <>. You could just try to live with the listing - the
only mail that *should* get blocked is NDRs and vacation messages.
--
MrD.
http://ipquery.org
RBas
>
> --
> Comments posted to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
> are solely the responsibility of their author. Please
> read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at
> http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.htmlbefore posting.
Let make one thing clear, I don't send messages that put me on these
list, I don't own any servers. My domain and email is hosted by
mercuryservers.com so I don't have any control on how there servers
are configured.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 11:01 AM, MrD <mrdem...@jackpot.invalid> said:
>As you have discovered, they are different lists, with different listing
>criteria. It seems you are listed for backscattering, but not for
>spamming.
Backscatter is spam, it's just that UCEPROTECT segregates the reporting of
that class of spammers. Some lists aggregate it with other types.
>There is no easy way to get this resolved *even if you do pay*. That is,
>unless you resolve the underlying problem, then paying money will only
>make you angry
I believe that it will also make Claus angry and that eventually he will
stop accepting payment for express delisting of that IP address.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
--
Hal Murray
>Note that the list is only meant for blocking backscatter; it's not a
>spammer blacklist, and it only makes sense to consult it in connection
>with messages from <>. You could just try to live with the listing - the
>only mail that *should* get blocked is NDRs and vacation messages.
Do vacation messages come from <>? If not, does backscatter.org
list for vacation messages?
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
siversoncan
>
> Let make one thing clear, I don't send messages that put me on these
> list, I don't own any servers. My domain and email is hosted by
> mercuryservers.com so I don't have any control on how there servers
> are configured.
>
1. Somehow get mercurserver.com to configure their servers so they
don't emit backscatter.
(then wait 4 weeks or pay to express delist)
2. Get you email hosted by a different provider that doesn't emit
backscatter.
There is one other possible option. Stay with your current provider
and let backscatterrer.org continue to list your mail server's IP and
complain to whichever email server admin has configured their server
to block your email based on this list.
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
> There is one other possible option. Stay with your
> current provider and let backscatterrer.org continue
> to list your mail server's IP and complain to whichever
> email server admin has configured their server to block
> your email based on this list.
It would probably be more likely to be resolved (& perhaps
faster, if at all), if you contact the recipient, and the
recipient contacts the recipient's Admin, about the messages
the recipient wants / needs / expects, that spamcontrol
seems to be intercepting.
Many Admins are unlikely to pay much attention to senders
(who are not their customer) whining about the messages
senders are sending, to one of the Admin's endusers being
blocked / filtered by the Admin's spamcontrol (3rd party
DNSbl or not).
Admins are more likely to listen the the recipient (their
customer) complaints about the spamcontrol blocking
/ filtering messages that the recipient wants / needs
/ expects.
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Anitech-Systems.com>
will be added to the BlackLists.
--
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
>> Note that the list is only meant for blocking backscatter;
>> it's not a spammer blacklist, and it only makes sense to
>> consult it in connection with messages from <>.
>> You could just try to live with the listing - the only
>> mail that *should* get blocked is NDRs and vacation messages.
>
> Do vacation messages come from <>?
Some do, some don't.
The classical nix vacation has a option e.g.
-R returnaddr Set the reply envelope sender address
Although I have also seen some that that use the users's
address unless a option is used e.g.
-z Set the envelope sender of the reply message to "<>"
instead of the user
... and other that default to the login name of the user
executing it, unless the option is used e.g.
-f from Specify the envelope sender address.
I have also seen some that are enduser / client side,
and use whatever the client program's From: is configured
with.
> If not, does backscatter.org list for vacation messages?
As far as I can tell, if they didn't come from null sender
or postmaster@, their going to get listed in UCEprotect as
spam when they hit the spamtraps, instead of backscatterer.
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Anitech-Systems.com>
will be added to the BlackLists.
--
Rob
> Let make one thing clear, I don't send messages that put me on these
> list, I don't own any servers. My domain and email is hosted by
> mercuryservers.com so I don't have any control on how there servers
> are configured.
Then you have (probably) no control over the fact that those servers
get listed in blocklists. You also should not worry about it, because
it is not good to worry over things that are beyond your control.
Just accept the fact and move on. Being on a blocklist is not the end
of the world, and it is not a problem for you. It is only a problem
for those that use the blocklist, especially when they use it in the
wrong way. Just make that their problem, not yours.
Claus v. Wolfhausen
rb6...@gmail.com says...
Then simply don't use it.
--
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
http://www.uceprotect.net
Claus v. Wolfhausen
>
>RBas <rb6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let make one thing clear, I don't send messages that put me on these
>> list, I don't own any servers. My domain and email is hosted by
>> mercuryservers.com so I don't have any control on how there servers
>> are configured.
>
>Then you have (probably) no control over the fact that those servers
>get listed in blocklists. You also should not worry about it, because
>it is not good to worry over things that are beyond your control.
>Just accept the fact and move on. Being on a blocklist is not the end
>of the world, and it is not a problem for you. It is only a problem
>for those that use the blocklist, especially when they use it in the
>wrong way. Just make that their problem, not yours.
That is of course mostly not working.
I will explain why:
You will have to talk to many users of such a blocklist and those ones that are
happy with the result will not make an exception for you until they need
something from you.
So giving hints as "make that their problem not yours" are not really helpful
for listees.
--
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
http://www.uceprotect.net
--
Rob
> In article <slrnhdf0qe....@xs7.xs4all.nl>, nom...@example.com says...
>>
>>RBas <rb6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Let make one thing clear, I don't send messages that put me on these
>>> list, I don't own any servers. My domain and email is hosted by
>>> mercuryservers.com so I don't have any control on how there servers
>>> are configured.
>>
>>Then you have (probably) no control over the fact that those servers
>>get listed in blocklists. You also should not worry about it, because
>>it is not good to worry over things that are beyond your control.
>>Just accept the fact and move on. Being on a blocklist is not the end
>>of the world, and it is not a problem for you. It is only a problem
>>for those that use the blocklist, especially when they use it in the
>>wrong way. Just make that their problem, not yours.
>
> That is of course mostly not working.
>
> I will explain why:
>
> You will have to talk to many users of such a blocklist and those ones that are
> happy with the result will not make an exception for you until they need
> something from you.
>
> So giving hints as "make that their problem not yours" are not really helpful
> for listees.
We have to live with people like you who put up lists that are misunderstood
by typical mailserver operators and used as mail blocklist where they are
not suitable for the purpose.
What other advise can be given that to make that the problem of those who
make that mistake??
Maybe it would be better if you emptied the list, but you are probably
not going to do that, so that is no solution either.
Changing the mailserver to suit your idea of what is abuse is of course
no option. It is not his server.
Claus v. Wolfhausen
I really don't understand why you believe that the typical mailserver
operator does not read policies and usage recommendations of blocklists.
Since it is written in *BIG RED LETTERS* at the backscatterer.org
website how we recommend to use the list, we (tinw) have to assume that
those people using ips.backscatterer.org like a spammer dnsbl do exactly
know what they are doing.
Have you any proof for that they have not willfully chosen to block
backscatterers completely?
> What other advise can be given that to make that the problem of those who
> make that mistake??
Again, the fact that you can not believe someone is willfully using the
backscatterer.org blocklist for blocking all mail from listed systems,
does not make your believe true.
> Maybe it would be better if you emptied the list, but you are probably
> not going to do that, so that is no solution either.
It would not make sense to empty the list, because those listees that
did not stop their abusive behavior in the meantime would be back
afterwards almost immediately.
> Changing the mailserver to suit your idea of what is abuse is of course
> no option. It is not his server.
There seem to be lots of people sharing my opinion of what is abusive,
otherwise there would be no need to discuss about it.
Oh and i believe changing the mailserver can of course be an option if
the change includes the new server becomes his server.
--
Claus von Wolfhausen
Technical Director
UCEPROTECT-Network
http://www.uceprotect.net
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 04:08 PM, Rob <nom...@example.com> said:
>What other advise can be given that to make that the problem of those who
>make that mistake??
*IF* it is a mistake and not a well thought out policy decision, then you
can have one of his users discuss it with him. The admin will then do
whatever he[1] considers appropriate.
[1] It might not be the response you want.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
--
Seth
Rob <nom...@example.com> wrote:
>Changing the mailserver to suit your idea of what is abuse is of course
>no option. It is not his server.
So he can't change _that one_.
He can make another server _his_ server for around $10/month, and
change that one all he wants.
Seth
Rob
> rb6...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>I think backscatterer.org site is crap/scam.
>
> Then simply don't use it.
Why do you write this when in another article you so clearly explain why
that is not a solution??
Rob
> I really don't understand why you believe that the typical mailserver
> operator does not read policies and usage recommendations of blocklists.
I believe that because so many people come here to complain that they
are blacklisted at backscatterer.org, and that their mail is being blocked
because of it. And so they want to be removed.
Mail should not be blocked because of a listing at backscatterer.org.
Apparently the mailserver operators do not understand that.
> Since it is written in *BIG RED LETTERS* at the backscatterer.org
> website how we recommend to use the list, we (tinw) have to assume that
> those people using ips.backscatterer.org like a spammer dnsbl do exactly
> know what they are doing.
That is a wrong assumption. People can use the list without ever visiting
the website, e.g. because it is in a suggestion list of a blocklist handling
product where you only need to apply a checkmark to use it.
> Have you any proof for that they have not willfully chosen to block
> backscatterers completely?
That would be even more clueless. A lot of legitimate mailservers are
listed on backscatterer.org and this is not going to change.
>> What other advise can be given that to make that the problem of those who
>> make that mistake??
>
> Again, the fact that you can not believe someone is willfully using the
> backscatterer.org blocklist for blocking all mail from listed systems,
> does not make your believe true.
What proof do you have that your view is true?
Apparently you believe that your own beliefs are better than other people's.
Fine with me.
>> Maybe it would be better if you emptied the list, but you are probably
>> not going to do that, so that is no solution either.
>
> It would not make sense to empty the list, because those listees that
> did not stop their abusive behavior in the meantime would be back
> afterwards almost immediately.
Of course I mean: empty the list and stop filling it.
>> Changing the mailserver to suit your idea of what is abuse is of course
>> no option. It is not his server.
>
> There seem to be lots of people sharing my opinion of what is abusive,
> otherwise there would be no need to discuss about it.
>
> Oh and i believe changing the mailserver can of course be an option if
> the change includes the new server becomes his server.
You seem to disregard the fact that not everyone wants to be a mailserver
operator. Some people just use a service made available by someone else.
And not everyone agrees with you about what is abuse, so this mailserver
may not fit your criteria. You criteria are just your criteria, not
criteria for the mailservers of the world. Those are specified in the
RFCs that are to be treated as STD, not on Claus' webpage.
siversoncan
this.com> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > Claus v. Wolfhausen <use-reply-to-mail...@remove-this.com> wrote:
> >> In article <slrnhdf0qe.22p7.nom...@xs7.xs4all.nl>, nom...@example.com says...
> > We have to live with people like you who put up lists that are misunderstood
> > by typical mailserver operators and used as mail blocklist where they are
> > not suitable for the purpose.
>
> I really don't understand why you believe that the typical mailserver
> operator does not read policies and usage recommendations of blocklists.
>
> Since it is written in *BIG RED LETTERS* at the backscatterer.org
> website how we recommend to use the list, we (tinw) have to assume that
> those people using ips.backscatterer.org like a spammer dnsbl do exactly
> know what they are doing.
>
> Have you any proof for that they have not willfully chosen to block
> backscatterers completely?
>
uses your blocklist has read the instructions that you have written in
"BIG RED LETTERS."
You can't even assume that they understood them, or that even if they
read them and understood them that they have properly configured their
server to do what they expect it to do.
I don't know what world you live in, but I live in one where all
people make mistakes from time to time.
Or should we all assume are you incapable of making mistakes and
therefore can't understand why anyone else does.
The list provided by backscatterer.org is a tool, and like any other
tool some people will unintentially misuse it.
In fact, if you have enough people using a tool the odds of some of
them misusuing it is not a possibility, it is a certainty.
MrD
> Claus, you can't possibly be so naive as to believe that everyone who
> uses your blocklist has read the instructions that you have written
> in "BIG RED LETTERS."
He almost certainly isn't that naive. BIG RED LETTERS are usually used
when little black letters have been overlooked.
>
> I don't know what world you live in, but I live in one where all
> people make mistakes from time to time.
Possibly.
> Or should we all assume are you incapable of making mistakes and
> therefore can't understand why anyone else does.
Are you suggesting that Claus should implement a mechanism for
preventing people using backscatterer incorrectly? What mechanism do you
suggest, other than providing appropriate documentation (which he has done)?
>
> The list provided by backscatterer.org is a tool, and like any other
> tool some people will unintentially misuse it. In fact, if you have
> enough people using a tool the odds of some of them misusuing it is
> not a possibility, it is a certainty.
So?
--
MrD.
http://ipquery.org
siversoncan
> siversoncan wrote:
> > Claus, you can't possibly be so naive as to believe that everyone who
> > uses your blocklist has read the instructions that you have written
> > in "BIG RED LETTERS."
>
> He almost certainly isn't that naive. BIG RED LETTERS are usually used
> when little black letters have been overlooked.
>
>
>
> > I don't know what world you live in, but I live in one where all
> > people make mistakes from time to time.
>
> Possibly.
Possibly? As soon as you find someone who never makes mistakes I will
retract my comment.
> > Or should we all assume are you incapable of making mistakes and
> > therefore can't understand why anyone else does.
>
> Are you suggesting that Claus should implement a mechanism for
> preventing people using backscatterer incorrectly? What mechanism do you
> suggest, other than providing appropriate documentation (which he has done)?
>
I am not. But according to Claus' comments earlier in this thread he
is claiming that we need proof that a server operator is misusing the
list instead of willfully using it to block others. I am saying that
substantive proof is not required when statistically we know that if
enough people use the list, some of them are going to use it
erroneously.
The fact that Claus is saying that lacking other evidence he must
assume that typical server operators are using his list correctly for
their own purposes. He said that in reply to Rob's comment that "We
have to live with people like you who put up lists that are
misunderstood
by (some) typical mailserver operators and used as mail blocklist
where they are
not suitable for the purpose." I am inserting the word SOME in that
commect because I don't believe Rob meant ALL.
>
> > The list provided by backscatterer.org is a tool, and like any other
> > tool some people will unintentially misuse it. In fact, if you have
> > enough people using a tool the odds of some of them misusuing it is
> > not a possibility, it is a certainty.
>
> So?
>
The point is that some mail server operators use the backscatterer.org
list incorrectly as a spam blocklist and Claus should not try to deny
it. Either he hasn't thought it through or he is trying to cover up
his knowledge by asking others to provide proof.
Well, Claus. It is true that some server operators are using your list
incorrectly, because I had to point it out to one of them when one of
the users of our exchange server found out that an email they sent was
being blocked.
Oh, and by the way Mr. D, thanks for helping to illuminate my point.
Claus obviously is aware of this problem or he wouldn't be putting his
suggest configuration in BIG RED LETTERS!!
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 03:22 PM, Rob <nom...@example.com> said:
>I believe that because so many people come here to complain that they are
>blacklisted at backscatterer.org, and that their mail is being blocked
>because of it.
What does the ignorance of the sender have to do with his question?
>Mail should not be blocked because of a listing at backscatterer.org.
Mail should be blocked for whatever reason the admin and his bosses
consider appropriate. Unless you are one of his bosses, your uninformed
opinion is irrelevant.
>Apparently the mailserver operators do not understand that.
Repeating your bogus claim does not answer Claus's question as to why you
believe it.
>That is a wrong assumption.
So is the assumption that they *don't* read it. What are your data?
>That would be even more clueless.
PKB. Unless you have access to their logs, you have no way to know how
well it is working for them. Maybe they really are discarding a lot of
wanted e-mail, but your whining is no reason to believe it.
>A lot of legitimate mailservers
You don't get to dictate to the admin what he considers legitimate. He
only cares about what his bosses and users consider legitimate.
>What proof do you have that your view is true?
Logic.
>Apparently you believe that your own beliefs are better than other
>people's.
He doesn't have to run faster than the bear, he only has to run faster
than you.
>You seem to disregard the fact that not everyone wants to be a
>mailserver operator
How is that his responsibility?
>And not everyone agrees with you about what is abuse,
I missed the part where he held a gun to their heads and forced them to
use his list.
>You criteria are just your criteria,
They are relevant criteria for a lot of admins. In fact, that's why you're
whining.
>Those are specified in the RFCs that are to be treated as STD,
Which don't say what you would like them to say.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 09:09 PM, "Claus v. Wolfhausen"
<use-reply-...@remove-this.com> said:
>I really don't understand why you believe that the typical mailserver
>operator does not read policies and usage recommendations of blocklists.
Wishful thinking.
>There seem to be lots of people sharing my opinion of what is abusive,
>otherwise there would be no need to discuss about it.
Where you differ is in splitting off backscatter from other sources of
spam. The OP doesn't seem to understand that.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
--
MrD
>
> That is a wrong assumption. People can use the list without ever
> visiting the website, e.g. because it is in a suggestion list of a
> blocklist handling product where you only need to apply a checkmark
> to use it.
Well, then whatever product presents such a checklist is very stupid.
But unlike the (impossible) problem of locating all the mail-admins who
unwittingly use backscatterer to block, identifying all products that
offer backscatterer on such a checklist should be easy. Do you know of any?
>
> What proof do you have that your view is true? Apparently you believe
> that your own beliefs are better than other people's. Fine with me.
Anyone who has a belief considers that belief to be more correct than
the corresponding beliefs of those who disagree with them! (It's in the
nature of believing something).
--
MrD.
http://ipquery.org
Fallout
> > Have you any proof for that they have not willfully chosen to block
> > backscatterers completely?
>
> That would be even more clueless. A lot of legitimate mailservers are
> listed on backscatterer.org and this is not going to change.
Obviously someone doing that by mistake will get ALOT of false
positives. And it would be easy to notice the "problem". So 2
possibilities open up:
1) If they keep it that way it's because they want it that way and
it's none of your business to tell them what to do.
2) If after getting tons of legitimate mail block they're too ignorant
to find out why, the only mail server they should be running is on
their LAN. Or are you saying backscatterer should cease existence/
change policy because some inept admins can't figure out what is
blocking legitimate mail?
> What proof do you have that your view is true?
Logic is proof enough. See above.
> Apparently you believe that your own beliefs are better than other people's.
Doesn't everyone? That's what a belief *is*, after all! If you
believed my opinion was better than yours, it would be your opinion
too :-)
> You seem to disregard the fact that not everyone wants to be a mailserver
> operator. Some people just use a service made available by someone else.
And if that service isn't operated properly or in accordance to their
wishes, they should change the service or live with it without
complaining.
> And not everyone agrees with you about what is abuse, so this mailserver
> may not fit your criteria. You criteria are just your criteria, not
> criteria for the mailservers of the world. Those are specified in the
> RFCs that are to be treated as STD, not on Claus' webpage.
No, those criteria are decided by the receiving systems. The RFC's
allow the mail admin to block whatever he/she wants. And if they want
to block people that are on a list on the internet, who do you think
you are telling them they can't? You just said "You criteria are just
your criteria, not criteria for the mailservers of the world" - so let
it be *my* criteria and not yours!
MrD
>> So?
>>
> The point is that some mail server operators use the
> backscatterer.org list incorrectly as a spam blocklist and Claus
> should not try to deny it.
I don't believe he's denied it. What he said is that any operator who is
using the list to block might be doing so deliberately. He challenged
Rob to prove they are not - a rash demand, since it makes no difference
whether examples exist or not, and one example would satisfy the demand
- but Rob has offered no proof.
Now you've challenged Claus to prove that *no* such examples exist; I
don't think he needs to, since he never claimed that nobody using his
list was inadvertently using it to block.
> Either he hasn't thought it through or he is trying to cover up his
> knowledge by asking others to provide proof.
I think you've misread his remarks.
>
> Well, Claus. It is true that some server operators are using your
> list incorrectly, because I had to point it out to one of them when
> one of the users of our exchange server found out that an email they
> sent was being blocked.
Heh - well, there ya go. Sounds like you've found an example. But it
still doesn't mean that's Claus's problem.
>
> Oh, and by the way Mr. D, thanks for helping to illuminate my point.
> Claus obviously is aware of this problem or he wouldn't be putting
> his suggest configuration in BIG RED LETTERS!!
Well, it seems pretty clear that if you print a warning in big red
letters, you're acknowledging that danger lies here. But that's not the
same as saying that there's a problem; danger is a fact of life. And it
certainly doesn't mean that any problem is Claus's problem.
--
MrD.
http://ipquery.org
David Bolt
spaghetti and left this residue on the plate:
> The point is that some mail server operators use the backscatterer.org
> list incorrectly as a spam blocklist
How do you know that they are using it incorrectly? What do you mean
incorrectly? There are DNSWLs about that are "supposed" to be used as
the opposite of a DNSBL, and allow you to whitelist servers. Would it
be wrong to use such a DNSWL to block mail? If so, why?
> Well, Claus. It is true that some server operators are using your list
> incorrectly, because I had to point it out to one of them when one of
> the users of our exchange server found out that an email they sent was
> being blocked.
That doesn't mean that the list is being used incorrectly. Read the
page again and you will see this text, in black, between the chunks of
red text:
<quote>
Unfortunable many and also big providers do still backscatter. They are
flooding you with bounces but will almost always send real mail too.
As long as you are not a BOFH nor having the intention to boycott such
servers we strongly recommend to use ips.backscatterer.org in SAFE MODE
to prevent false positives.
SAFE MODE means you will do DNSBL-Querys if MAIL FROM: is <> or
postmaster only.
</quote>
So it's not incorrect to use it as a general blocklist, just that the
creators of the list suggest it should be used to only block those
sending bounces. They even draw attention to the fact that using it as
a general blocklist may/will mean you reject mail that may be wanted.
Regards,
David Bolt
--
Team Acorn: www.distributed.net OGR-NG @ ~100Mnodes RC5-72 @ ~1Mkeys/s
openSUSE 10.3 32b | openSUSE 11.0 32b | |
openSUSE 10.3 64b | openSUSE 11.0 64b | openSUSE 11.1 64b | openSUSE 11.2rc1
RISC OS 4.02 | RISC OS 3.11 | openSUSE 11.1 PPC | TOS 4.02
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
10/21/2009
at 06:01 PM, siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> said:
>I am not. But according to Claus' comments earlier in this thread he is
>claiming that we need proof that a server operator is misusing the list
>instead of willfully using it to block others.
The words "a", "some", "many" and "most" all have distinct meanings. I
expect Claus to defend the statements that he actually made; I don't
e3xpect him to defend statements that others incorrectly attribute to him.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
--
Rob
>> And not everyone agrees with you about what is abuse, so this mailserver
>> may not fit your criteria. You criteria are just your criteria, not
>> criteria for the mailservers of the world. Those are specified in the
>> RFCs that are to be treated as STD, not on Claus' webpage.
>
> No, those criteria are decided by the receiving systems. The RFC's
> allow the mail admin to block whatever he/she wants. And if they want
> to block people that are on a list on the internet, who do you think
> you are telling them they can't? You just said "You criteria are just
> your criteria, not criteria for the mailservers of the world" - so let
> it be *my* criteria and not yours!
Again someone who tries to discuss about the problem of spam and spam
filtering, and cannot get a clear picture about who are the parties
involved, what are they deciding and who are victims of those decisions.
You are talking about mailsystems RECEIVING mail, but the criteria set
by backscatterer.org are for systems SENDING messages from null sender.
Those are different parties. You need to understand that before you
can comment.
MrD
> Fallout <ad...@ascomex.ro> wrote:
>> No, those criteria are decided by the receiving systems. The RFC's
>> allow the mail admin to block whatever he/she wants. And if they
>> want to block people that are on a list on the internet, who do you
>> think you are telling them they can't? You just said "You criteria
>> are just your criteria, not criteria for the mailservers of the
>> world" - so let it be *my* criteria and not yours!
>
> Again someone who tries to discuss about the problem of spam and spam
> filtering, and cannot get a clear picture about who are the parties
> involved, what are they deciding and who are victims of those
> decisions.
>
> You are talking about mailsystems RECEIVING mail, but the criteria
> set by backscatterer.org are for systems SENDING messages from null
> sender.
It's not obvious to me that Fallout has confused those two parties. Your
remark implies that SENDERS can rely on backscatterer when filtering
their outbound NDRs; but that implication would be quite wrong.
Backscatterer enables RECEIVERS better to control what they receive -
not the other way round.
--
MrD.
http://ipquery.org
Seth
>I believe that because so many people come here to complain that they
>are blacklisted at backscatterer.org, and that their mail is being blocked
>because of it. And so they want to be removed.
And you are entitled to that belief.
>Mail should not be blocked because of a listing at backscatterer.org.
Is that part of your philosophy?
Do you have a reason for anybody else to care about what you believe
should be the state of the world?
>Apparently the mailserver operators do not understand that.
You offer no evidence for that claim. It's quite possible that they
do fully understand it, and knowingly choose to do what they are
doing.
I know that I, for one, understand that you believe that mail should
not be blocked because of a listing at backscatterer.org. You
undoubtedly also believe that mail should not be blocked because of a
listing on noprimes.org. I understand that. I even agree with you.
But I still choose to block mail coming from prime number IP addresses
on my home machine.
>> Since it is written in *BIG RED LETTERS* at the backscatterer.org
>> website how we recommend to use the list, we (tinw) have to assume that
>> those people using ips.backscatterer.org like a spammer dnsbl do exactly
>> know what they are doing.
>
>That is a wrong assumption.
But it's one they're [tint] required to make.
> People can use the list without ever visiting
>the website, e.g. because it is in a suggestion list of a blocklist handling
>product where you only need to apply a checkmark to use it.
Even if true, so what? Whose fault would that be?
>> Have you any proof for that they have not willfully chosen to block
>> backscatterers completely?
>
>That would be even more clueless.
Is there any shortage of cluelessness in your universe? This one has
an oversupply.
> A lot of legitimate mailservers are
>listed on backscatterer.org
FSVO "legitimate". I don't consider a server that spams me (with
backscatter or otherwise) to be fully legitimate. YMMV.
> and this is not going to change.
Remember that statement.
>>> What other advise can be given that to make that the problem of those who
>>> make that mistake??
>>
>> Again, the fact that you can not believe someone is willfully using the
>> backscatterer.org blocklist for blocking all mail from listed systems,
>> does not make your believe true.
>
>What proof do you have that your view is true?
Logic says so. Your inability to believe something is not binding on
the state of the universe.
>Apparently you believe that your own beliefs are better than other people's.
You don't believe that your beliefs are better than other people's?
Then why don't you adopt theirs instead, since they're better? Do you
enjoy having bad beliefs?
>> It would not make sense to empty the list, because those listees that
>> did not stop their abusive behavior in the meantime would be back
>> afterwards almost immediately.
>
>Of course I mean: empty the list and stop filling it.
That would be worse than worthless: as it is, the list provides
information that is useful to some. An empty list provides no
information.
>>> Changing the mailserver to suit your idea of what is abuse is of course
>>> no option. It is not his server.
>> There seem to be lots of people sharing my opinion of what is abusive,
>> otherwise there would be no need to discuss about it.
>> Oh and i believe changing the mailserver can of course be an option if
>> the change includes the new server becomes his server.
>
>You seem to disregard the fact that not everyone wants to be a mailserver
>operator. Some people just use a service made available by someone else.
Then they can switch to a service made available by somebody who
agrees with them.
>And not everyone agrees with you about what is abuse, so this mailserver
>may not fit your criteria.
What does that mean?
> You criteria are just your criteria,
Precisely.
> not criteria for the mailservers of the world.
They are his criteria for the mailservers of the world. Nobody forces
the owner/manager of any other mailserver to agree with him or use his
list.
> Those are specified in the
>RFCs that are to be treated as STD, not on Claus' webpage.
The RFCs specify that the operator of a mailserver may reject messages
for reasons of policy, and the policy is entirely up to the operator
of the mailserver. There's nothing in the RFCs saying that using
"lucky 7" (a dnsbl that answers the question "does the digit 7 appear
in the IP address?") to reject mail is a violation of any RFC.
Seth
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
(Shrug)
I would not expect a person with the necessary knowledge
skills and experience to properly administrate a mail
server, likely to do so, except intentionally.
What about other DNSbls that might have been used against
the maintainers expectations or recommendations?
{In some cases, certainly used by the clueless, exactly
as expected by the maintainer e.g. user blocking all
incoming messages.)
bl.testrbl.cameldns.com
blocked.secnap.net
ipv4.fahq2.com
nofalsenegatives.stopspam.samspade.org
nofalsepositive.stopspam.samspade.org
random.bl.gweep.ca
What about using WhiteLists as BlackLists,
or BlackLists as WhiteLists.
Why would someone continue to rant about such things,
and why should anyone else care?
>> Apparently the mailserver operators do not understand that.
Why should your opinion about that be a problem for anyone,
except you and the mail server admins that _might_ be
lacking the necessary knowledge skills and experience
to properly administrate a mail server?
> The RFCs specify that the operator of a mailserver may
> reject messages for reasons of policy, and the policy
> is entirely up to the operator of the mailserver.
... and if the mailservers' Admins don't like the results of
their actions, they can reconfigure their own SpamControl
however they want, as often as they want.
> There's nothing in the RFCs saying that using "lucky 7"
> (a dnsbl that answers the question "does the digit 7 appear
> in the IP address?") to reject mail is a violation of any RFC.
luckyseven.dnsbl.net ? Would that typically be used by the
clueless as a WhiteList or a BlackList?
<http://stats.dnsbl.com/luckyseven.html>
It has warnings to not use it as a blacklist,
however that doesn't mean someone isn't doing so.
Iverson apparently has it wildcarded, so it responds to all?
IP4r queries with the IP address of one of his servers,
instead of returning 127.0.0.2, so it's not even functional.
Although it could be used as an example of what a dead
DNSbl domain might behave like in some cases.
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Anitech-Systems.com>
will be added to the BlackLists.
--
Fallout
Of course I'm talking about receiving systems, as they're the ones
using the list. And they are the one you keep claiming use the list in
the wrong way. You weren't whining about backscatterer's criteria
being wrong (at least not in *this* thread), but about mail systems
receiving mail using said list in a wrong way.
Trying to twist logic to avoid answering valid arguments doesn't
exactly help your case. I appreciate how you ignored the rest of my
message too and just 'picked' on the last bit :-)