Considering that APEWS is only used by a handful of cluebies running mail servers in their attics for 5 family friends and 3 cats, does anyone besides the NANAE peanut gallery actually think the game of pretending people are blocked and must do things to 'get off' APEWS is anything but a game of lying to try to rope other people into the fight?
Some of this newsgroup and some of the NANAE group live in Kookland. Responding to endless poor suckers by telling them things they need to do in order to get removed from APEWS, pretending APEWS listings are probably linked to other DNSBL listings elsewhere in the /16s which the suckers need to somehow get fixed, all without telling them that in fact nothing's blocked at all and any blocking or mail problems they *think* they're experiencing because of an APEWS 'red alert' they saw on DNSstuff.com are *entirely in their imagination*.
Some of the NANAE group go beyond outright lying and even tell them that if they don't do what APEWS wants "things will only get worse", obviously hoping to waste as much of these peoples time as possible, getting them to call up their ISPs, even trying to get them to switch ISPs to get around imaginary APEWS blockings.
It is very simply a game of lying to gullible people and it totally sucks to the rest of the anti-spam community.
-- 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.
Steve Linford <linf...@spamhaus.org> writes: > Considering that APEWS is only used by a handful of cluebies running > mail servers in their attics for 5 family friends and 3 cats, does > anyone besides the NANAE peanut gallery actually think the game of > pretending people are blocked and must do things to 'get off' APEWS is > anything but a game of lying to try to rope other people into the fight?
> Some of this newsgroup and some of the NANAE group live in Kookland. > Responding to endless poor suckers by telling them things they need to > do in order to get removed from APEWS, pretending APEWS listings are > probably linked to other DNSBL listings elsewhere in the /16s which the > suckers need to somehow get fixed, all without telling them that in fact > nothing's blocked at all and any blocking or mail problems they *think* > they're experiencing because of an APEWS 'red alert' they saw on > DNSstuff.com are *entirely in their imagination*.
> Some of the NANAE group go beyond outright lying and even tell them that > if they don't do what APEWS wants "things will only get worse", > obviously hoping to waste as much of these peoples time as possible, > getting them to call up their ISPs, even trying to get them to switch > ISPs to get around imaginary APEWS blockings.
> It is very simply a game of lying to gullible people and it totally > sucks to the rest of the anti-spam community.
-- 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.
Steve Linford wrote: > Considering that APEWS is only used by a handful of cluebies running > mail servers in their attics for 5 family friends and 3 cats, does
Can you show proof of this? I have a person insisting that a number of small operators and SOHOs have taken up APEWS as a spam-fighting measure, and this person claims he has actual bounces. (I haven't seen them yet. "Show me the bounces!" Silence.)
I reviewed APEWS and decided it was too aggressive and, in a sense, arbitrary to use for scoring, let alone blocking...but that was my choice.
-- 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.
> Some of the NANAE group go beyond outright lying and even tell them that > if they don't do what APEWS wants "things will only get worse", > obviously hoping to waste as much of these peoples time as possible, > getting them to call up their ISPs, even trying to get them to switch > ISPs to get around imaginary APEWS blockings.
Maybe this is what its good for. Companies and admins are getting alerted who they give their money. And they alert their upstreams and put pressure on them. Dont know if it works, but at least some are getting aware of their neighborhood.
-- 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.
>Can you show proof of this? I have a person insisting that a number of >small operators and SOHOs have taken up APEWS as a spam-fighting >measure, and this person claims he has actual bounces. (I haven't seen >them yet. "Show me the bounces!" Silence.)
A hard bounce actually showed up in NANAE recently.
-- These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
-- 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.
In article <1rOdndzm6s0HTi3bnZ2dnUVZ_tbin...@megapath.net>, hal-use...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
> >Can you show proof of this? I have a person insisting that a number of > >small operators and SOHOs have taken up APEWS as a spam-fighting > >measure, and this person claims he has actual bounces. (I haven't seen > >them yet. "Show me the bounces!" Silence.)
> A hard bounce actually showed up in NANAE recently.
Whoopie, a bounce from the home mail server of a complete cluebie who had no clue what he was using or why. If you can stretch that to pretend maybe the cluebie is the tip of an invisible cluebie iceberg, then maybe it's worth stretching it further to pretending there are actual networks using it which could justify telling the suckers that come in here that they have to do things to get unblocked...
-- 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.
Steve Linford wrote: > Considering that APEWS is only used by a handful of > cluebies running mail servers in their attics for 5 > family friends and 3 cats,
I heard there was a dog involved somewhere too. {However that is only a rumor.}
I don't see APEWS responses any significantly different than those for BLARS, SPEWS, ... (most DNSbls) Most people point out elsewhere it is listed, &/or other info they see about that netspace / ISP (the OP already knows about the info in whatever list they mentioned).
-- E-Mail Sent to this address <BlackL...@Anitech-Systems.com> will be added to the BlackLists.
-- 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.
Well first of all, I agree with what you say about it being wrong for people to stoke unreasonable fear amongst those listed by APEWS. It's really an unpleasant and extreme version of the FUD tactic.
And I think it's also pretty unnecessary. Those listed seem concerned about the listing even before they receive the responses postulating dire consequences if they're not removed.
Really, the beauty of APEWS is precisely that it *isn't* used by a significant number of mail admins. The listings I've seen all have been genuinely "dirty" IP space *under APEWS' published criteria* (and under my criteria, to be honest, not that that means I'd block it all). The result is a "block" list that doesn't block yet which does alert people when they're on a network that supports spammers. If we'd leave it at that rather than stoking hysteria it ought to be enough. In fact, judging by the people who come here asking for removal, it really *is* enough: Most of them seem to be upset at just the *idea* of "being on a block list" or that their mail *might* be blocked. Yes, it's irrational but irrationality isn't in short supply these days.
So rather than fanning the flames, why not just tell APEWS listees: 1 - You needn't worry because almost no one uses APEWS 2 - You aren't listed, it's your provider 3 - Your provider is listed because they support spammers 4 - If you really, really, really insist on trying to change the listing you need to contact your provider and pressure them to dump their spammers 5 - Step 4 probably won't work but it doesn't matter because of #1
I get the feeling most of the types who come here looking for removal would wring their hands and fret just as much no matter what they're told. It isn't *necessary* to sully the image of the anti-spam movement by exaggerating and fanning the flames of irrational fears.
By being honest about the impact of APEWS and civil about how we state it -- even in the face of obnoxious complainers -- we might just get a few listees to complain to their spam-friendly providers. That may not help but it isn't a bad thing. (Think of it as an anti-spam version of Arlo Guthrie's "Anti-Massacree Movement")
-- 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.
* Steve Linford wrote: > Considering that APEWS is only used by a handful of cluebies running > mail servers in their attics for 5 family friends and 3 cats, does > anyone besides the NANAE peanut gallery actually think the game of > pretending people are blocked and must do things to 'get off' APEWS is > anything but a game of lying to try to rope other people into the fight?
> Some of this newsgroup and some of the NANAE group live in Kookland. > Responding to endless poor suckers by telling them things they need to > do in order to get removed from APEWS, pretending APEWS listings are > probably linked to other DNSBL listings elsewhere in the /16s which the > suckers need to somehow get fixed, all without telling them that in fact > nothing's blocked at all and any blocking or mail problems they *think* > they're experiencing because of an APEWS 'red alert' they saw on > DNSstuff.com are *entirely in their imagination*.
> Some of the NANAE group go beyond outright lying and even tell them that > if they don't do what APEWS wants "things will only get worse", > obviously hoping to waste as much of these peoples time as possible, > getting them to call up their ISPs, even trying to get them to switch > ISPs to get around imaginary APEWS blockings.
> It is very simply a game of lying to gullible people and it totally > sucks to the rest of the anti-spam community.
Yeah, tell em Steve
IMHO A blocklist should be wielded like an ice pick, not a sledgehammer.
-- 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.
In message <GT8si.54613$5j1.34...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
<N...@BlackList.Anitech-Systems.invalid> wrote: >I don't see APEWS responses any significantly different > than those for BLARS, SPEWS, ... (most DNSbls) > Most people point out elsewhere it is listed, &/or > other info they see about that netspace / ISP > (the OP already knows about the info in whatever list > they mentioned).
BLARS responses always made it clear the DNSBL was a joke. SPEWS had a nack for picking out spammers that APEWS has failed to obtain, yet the responses are more suited to SPEWS then to APEWS.
-- Americans couldn't be any more self-absorbed if they were made from equal parts water and papertowel. -- Dennis Miller
-- 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.
>That is, in many cases, an absolute crock of shit. Huge chunks of clean >networks - softlayer, for example, have been listed in apews for a very long >time with absolutely zero supporting evidence. It is precisely this type of >listing, of which apews is absolutely riddled with, that has made apews >completely worthless.
I'm not a great APEWS fan, but you picked a bad example. softlayer has hit me 5 times. google-groups has samples in NANAS.
softlayer may be a good guys, but "absolutely zero" is far from what I see. (and I'm not a big target)
-- These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
-- 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.
Steve Linford <linf...@spamhaus.org> wrote in news:linford- 5AC04C.13075701082...@news.supernews.com:
> Considering that APEWS is only used by a handful of cluebies running > mail servers in their attics for 5 family friends and 3 cats,
[snip]
> saw on DNSstuff.com
DNSstuff lists APEWS. People trust dnsstuff. People then trust APEWS, even though they know nothing about it and don't know if it's used or not.
[snip]
> It is very simply a game of lying to gullible people and it totally > sucks to the rest of the anti-spam community.
I agree. When this group started I didn't think I'd have to killfile anyone here, but now? There's a few who've been kf'd.
-- 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.
BFS wrote: > Huge chunks of clean networks - softlayer, for example, > have been listed in apews
(Shrug)
I see SpamTrap hits , C/R Spam & BackScatter from AS36351 66.228.112.0/20 , 74.86.0.0/17 , 75.126.0.0/16 , 208.101.0.0/18
So, what classifies softlayer as "clean"?
... or was that supposed to be "cleaner" than some other ISPs?
-- E-Mail Sent to this address <BlackL...@Griffin-Technologies.net> will be added to the BlackLists.
-- 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.
In <dfn1b3hsiirfdnccam4ld2d60fupvot...@4ax.com>, on 08/02/2007 at 12:17 AM, Mark Roberts <m...@robertstech.com> said:
>So rather than fanning the flames, why not just tell APEWS listees: >1 - You needn't worry because almost no one uses APEWS
Because I have no data to support that claim.
>2 - You aren't listed, it's your provider >3 - Your provider is listed because they support spammers 4 - If you >really, really, really insist on trying to change the listing you >need to contact your provider and pressure them to dump their >spammers
We (TINW) *do* tell them that.
>5 - Step 4 probably won't work but it doesn't matter because of #1
Because we can't honestly tell them the second part in the absence of supporting data.
>It isn't *necessary* to sully the image of the anti-spam movement by >exaggerating and fanning the flames of irrational fears.
Nor is it necessary to claim exaggeration where there is none.
>By being honest about the impact of APEWS and civil about how we >state it
PKB. Being honest includes not presenting unsubstantiated opinions as facts and not presenting legitimate disagreements as lies.
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 spamt...@library.lspace.org
-- 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.
>BLARS responses always made it clear the DNSBL was a joke. SPEWS had a >nack for picking out spammers that APEWS has failed to obtain, yet the >responses are more suited to SPEWS then to APEWS.
SPEWS' web page also provided much better information, especially for an escalation. It was easy for somebody to get a feel for how bad the listed neighborhood was and/or which ISPs were hosting nasty spammers.
-- These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
-- 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.
Steve Linford <linf...@spamhaus.org> wrote: > hal-use...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote: > > >Can you show proof of this? I have a person insisting that a > > >number of small operators and SOHOs have taken up APEWS as a > > >spam-fighting measure, and this person claims he has actual > > >bounces. (I haven't seen them yet. "Show me the bounces!" > > >Silence.) > > A hard bounce actually showed up in NANAE recently. > Whoopie, a bounce from the home mail server of a complete cluebie who > had no clue what he was using or why. If you can stretch that to > pretend maybe the cluebie is the tip of an invisible cluebie iceberg, > then maybe it's worth stretching it further to pretending there are > actual networks using it which could justify telling the suckers that > come in here that they have to do things to get unblocked...
Indeed. In fact, not finding any hard bounces would actually be more of an indictment, because it'd mean that even the guy who created the thing knew better than to use it.
-- Huey
-- 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.
>In <dfn1b3hsiirfdnccam4ld2d60fupvot...@4ax.com>, on 08/02/2007 > at 12:17 AM, Mark Roberts <m...@robertstech.com> said:
>>So rather than fanning the flames, why not just tell APEWS listees: >>1 - You needn't worry because almost no one uses APEWS
>Because I have no data to support that claim.
Neither do I, but I'm quite willing to accept the expert opinion of Steve Linford, who is one of the most respected authorities on both spam and blocklists.
BTW: Though Steve has a point about some people who are stirring the pot, I think what's missing is the person *most* responsible: The person who's sending complainants to NANAB and NANAE in the first place. It's clear from the posts that many of the people using the newsgroups to request delisting haven't read the APEWS FAQ. Which raises the question of how they got the idea of posting in the newsgroup in the first place. And since almost no one asking for list removal is posting actual rejected emails, it seems likely that they're only find out that they're listed because someone is contacting than and telling them so. It is not unreasonable to assume that whoever is "helpfully" informing people that their IP address is listed is also the person instructing them to post to the newsgroups for list removal. Someone who is, in effect, doing a manual, labor-intensive version of a Hipcrime newsgroup flood. This is the person really to blame.
-- 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.
Mark Roberts wrote: > ... since almost no one asking for list removal is > posting actual rejected emails, > it seems likely that they're only find out that they're > listed because someone is contacting than and telling them so.
I think many are DNSstuff alert subscribers (or something like that).
-- E-Mail Sent to this address <BlackL...@Anitech-Systems.com> will be added to the BlackLists.
-- 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.
> Steve Linford <linf...@spamhaus.org> writes: > > Considering that APEWS is only used by a handful of cluebies running > > mail servers in their attics for 5 family friends and 3 cats, does > > anyone besides the NANAE peanut gallery actually think the game of > > pretending people are blocked and must do things to 'get off' APEWS is > > anything but a game of lying to try to rope other people into the fight?
> > Some of this newsgroup and some of the NANAE group live in Kookland. > > Responding to endless poor suckers by telling them things they need to > > do in order to get removed from APEWS, pretending APEWS listings are > > probably linked to other DNSBL listings elsewhere in the /16s which the > > suckers need to somehow get fixed, all without telling them that in fact > > nothing's blocked at all and any blocking or mail problems they *think* > > they're experiencing because of an APEWS 'red alert' they saw on > > DNSstuff.com are *entirely in their imagination*.
> > Some of the NANAE group go beyond outright lying and even tell them that > > if they don't do what APEWS wants "things will only get worse", > > obviously hoping to waste as much of these peoples time as possible, > > getting them to call up their ISPs, even trying to get them to switch > > ISPs to get around imaginary APEWS blockings.
> > It is very simply a game of lying to gullible people and it totally > > sucks to the rest of the anti-spam community.
> Publish your opinion about APEWS.org and `APEWS on NANAE/NANAB' on some > web page. I may *consider* appending *the link* to my `APEWS replies'.
> Doing anything more than appending such link would mean assuming that > NANAE and NANAB should be treated as `lamers gatherings'.
well, when i went through the torture of establishing this newsgroup, i didn't intend it to become another "lamers gathering."
in fact, my intent was quite the opposite. unfortunately, though, i proposed excellent, fair-minded moderators, who persist in approving posts solely based on their conformance with the charter, which means that, yes: you *are* permitted to post here.
adam
-- "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for one day. Teach him to fish, and he'll drink beer and tell lies for the rest of his life."
can this thread please get wrapped up? :-) /this mod
-- 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.
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:22:16 +0000, huey.callison wrote: > Indeed. In fact, not finding any hard bounces would actually be more of > an indictment, because it'd mean that even the guy who created the thing > knew better than to use it.
Not necessarily.
It could well be that the GWCTT has no reason to expoect legitimate mail from areas that he listed. No legitimate mail expected from those areas would translate into no SMTP rejects (not bounces, please).
-- The e-mail address in the From: header of this post is valid. Add [spammerssuck] to the Subject: of any correspondence or said correspondence will be deleted unread.
-- 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.
In article <linford-5AC04C.13075701082...@news.supernews.com>, linf...@spamhaus.org says...
>Considering that APEWS is only used by a handful of cluebies running >mail servers in their attics for 5 family friends and 3 cats, does >anyone besides the NANAE peanut gallery actually think the game of >pretending people are blocked and must do things to 'get off' APEWS is >anything but a game of lying to try to rope other people into the fight?
First let me say that i would have expected such an subject and that content from M.Ciprut, but not from the SPAMHAUS operator.
Really strange to see you are claiming your private opinions as facts here. You have no prove how many systems are using the APEWS lists and for what reasons. You do not run their mirrors.
Even if you would be right, and nobody would use that lists you should be glad about every user calling his provider and complaining about spammers, shouldn't you?
There is nothing which can do an equivalent pressure to providers than angry customers calling them and having clue about their provider is the source of their problems.
I've learned this within the 6 weeks i maintain the UCEPROTECT blocklists now.
Most providers panic if lots of customers are complaining because of spammers exists in the same netblock and they begin realizing to be just a bunch of IP's away to get a complete /16 escalated up to UCEPROTECT-Level 3.
I can see this every day looking into the tickets they open and begging to not get escalated / making promises that they will terminate spammers faster next time / telling what measures they are planning to install.
It does not matter users are really at risk to get blocked or just got that imagination. What matters is the result only:
They will call their providers and complain about the spammers.
Real spamfighters should appreciate that, because it is helpfull to eliminate the spam problem.
The question is therfore: What is your problem with APEWS?
It seems to me you worry about who will pay you tomorrow, if APEWS would be sucessfull and spam disappear.
>Some of this newsgroup and some of the NANAE group live in Kookland. >Responding to endless poor suckers by telling them things they need to >do in order to get removed from APEWS, pretending APEWS listings are >probably linked to other DNSBL listings elsewhere in the /16s which the >suckers need to somehow get fixed,
It is a fact that APEWS is using other DNSBL's searching spam sources. I got a mail from Al Iverson, he also noticed that there are sometimes ranges listed by APEWS shortly after they were seen on the UCEPROTECT blocklists.
Investigating i found that our lists are indeed also downloadet by APEWS. I've also seen APEWS sometimes pointing to ROSKO listings.
Why do you deny the facts that there are for sure links to other DNSBL listings?
>all without telling them that in fact nothing's blocked at all and any
Why don't you tell people the facts that you would never list the worlds most abusive big providers in your blocklist? Let's call them COMCASTBUSINESS, TIMEWARNER, ATT, VERIZON.
I guess you are not doing so because you have (good or bad) reasons. Those not sharing your opinions on APEWS have better reasons.
>blocking or mail problems they *think* they're experiencing because of an >APEWS 'red alert' they saw on DNSstuff.com are *entirely in their >imagination*.
Dnsstuff does not send alerts on lists they flagged as "SHOULD NOT BE USED".
>Some of the NANAE group go beyond outright lying and even tell them that >if they don't do what APEWS wants "things will only get worse", >obviously hoping to waste as much of these peoples time as possible, >getting them to call up their ISPs, even trying to get them to switch >ISPs to get around imaginary APEWS blockings. >It is very simply a game of lying to gullible people and it totally >sucks to the rest of the anti-spam community.
Are you asking me to get rude? Here you are:
Who did authorize you to speak for the "rest of the anti-spam community"?
If you would be a real spamfighter, you would not knowingly ignore the worst spamsewers, you would appreciate what APEWS does instead.
SORBS and UCEPROTECT would not mirror zones which "sucks". That does not mean i recommend using APEWS for blocking.
In my opinion the APEWS lists are excellent as an advisory or to be used in scoring systems.
For this reason i continued to mirror the zones and additional made them public available for rsync.
-- 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.
In article <f8vht6$92...@ulm.shuttle.de>, use-reply-to-mail...@remove-this.com (Claus v. Wolfhausen) wrote:
> In article <linford-5AC04C.13075701082...@news.supernews.com>, > linf...@spamhaus.org says...
> >Considering that APEWS is only used by a handful of cluebies running > >mail servers in their attics for 5 family friends and 3 cats, does > >anyone besides the NANAE peanut gallery actually think the game of > >pretending people are blocked and must do things to 'get off' APEWS is > >anything but a game of lying to try to rope other people into the fight?
> First let me say that i would have expected such an subject and that content > from M.Ciprut, but not from the SPAMHAUS operator. > Even if you would be right, and nobody would use that lists you should be > glad about every user calling his provider and complaining about spammers, > shouldn't you?
No. People calling ISPs and saying "I want to complain of some spammers, I don't know where but they're somewhere in your /12 and no I have no proof" simply makes ISPs think "what a bunch of nutjob timewasters".
> There is nothing which can do an equivalent pressure to providers than > angry customers calling them and having clue about their provider is the > source of their problems.
What "clue" and what "problems", imaginary ones you pretend exist?
> It does not matter users are really at risk to get blocked or just got that > imagination. What matters is the result only:
> They will call their providers and complain about the spammers.
> Real spamfighters should appreciate that, because it is helpfull to eliminate > the spam problem.
This is not any form of spam-fighting I understand, this is simply bullshitting to the public and bullshitting to ISPs and making a bad name for spam-fighters.
-- 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.
> In article <linford-5AC04C.13075701082...@news.supernews.com>, > linf...@spamhaus.org says...
>>Considering that APEWS is only used by a handful of cluebies running >>mail servers in their attics for 5 family friends and 3 cats, does >>anyone besides the NANAE peanut gallery actually think the game of >>pretending people are blocked and must do things to 'get off' APEWS is >>anything but a game of lying to try to rope other people into the fight?
> Even if you would be right, and nobody would use that lists you should be > glad about every user calling his provider and complaining about spammers, > shouldn't you?
> There is nothing which can do an equivalent pressure to providers than > angry customers calling them and having clue about their provider is the > source of their problems.
> I've learned this within the 6 weeks i maintain the UCEPROTECT blocklists > now.
> Most providers panic if lots of customers are complaining because of > spammers > exists in the same netblock and they begin realizing to be just a bunch of > IP's away to get a complete /16 escalated up to UCEPROTECT-Level 3.
I think additional pressure on spam-friendly ISPs are great. Sure, it can be considered "scare tactics" or FUD, but that is how many other things work in society; People are scared of going to jail for stealing, so (most) they don't steal. We know that some thieves do not go to jail, but the possibility of being caught scare most people into not stealing.
I think it is a good thing that customers of spam-friendly ISPs get notified, and complain to the ISP, and that it perhaps makes the ISP change. I remember when SPEWS first launched, it got many previously dirty ISPs to change and start cleaning up their act.
And what better way to scare people that to create a list that nobody really uses? No mail is actually lost, but customers and ISPs get scared, wondeing "when will my IP:s be blocked by a list that is widely used?".
On the other hand, it seems from some postings I seen that APEWS are sometimes listing a little bit too wide blocks, and the documentation on escalations and evidence is very weak. I liked the SPEWS model much better, in that regard.
Personally, I do not use APEWS. I used SPEWS and was happy with it, and I use the Spamhaus lists as well. Steve, thanks for a great job there, by the way.
> Why don't you tell people the facts that you would never list the worlds > most abusive big providers in your blocklist? > Let's call them COMCASTBUSINESS, TIMEWARNER, ATT, VERIZON.
I would use blackholes.us for that, why duplicate lists that already exists? You also have to remember that the Spamhaus lists are widely used, and if it block too much legitimate mail, the users would drop it, and it would be less effective. It is a fine balance Steve has to walk, between blocking spam and not blocking too much, where an excess to either side would result in fewer users.
However, I would like to hear more from Steve on how the work is going with the "worst" ISPs on the list, if there currently is a constructive dialog going on with Verizon, ATT, etc.
/Karl
-- 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.
> SORBS and UCEPROTECT would not mirror zones which "sucks". > That does not mean i recommend using APEWS for blocking.
I mirror the zone because I was asked and it seemed sane at the time.
I'm continuing to mirror it because I started to mirror it and people *might* be using it. I don't mirror it because it does or doesn't suck, and to be honest if APEWS uses me as an endorsement on it's quality, it'll get a rude shock when I drop it without warning or notice.
I do not *endorse* *any* DNSbl or anti-spam service.
That said in addition to SORBS (safe.dnsbl.sorbs.net) I do use:
CBL NJABL DSBL The hijacked and bogon's lists from completewhois.
... on all the mail servers I administer (which accounts for > 100k mailboxes)
I am currently mirroring and testing ASPEWS and I have no complaints so far.
For SpamAssassin scoring I use spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net in addition to the above DNSbls.
I do not use APEWS at all.
I do not use SPEWS now either (I used to use it for scoring).
> In my opinion the APEWS lists are excellent as an advisory or to be used in > scoring systems.
I don't, but that's my opinion.
Regards,
Mat
-- 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.
Karl-Henry Martinsson wrote: > On the other hand, it seems from some postings I seen that > APEWS are sometimes listing a little bit too wide blocks,
Stopping at the RIR -> LIR direct allocation CIDR would be nice.
> and the documentation on escalations and evidence is very > weak. I liked the SPEWS model much better, in that regard.
Yes.
-- E-Mail Sent to this address <BlackL...@Anitech-Systems.com> will be added to the BlackLists.
-- 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.
|
