SPEWS removal request - S2955
steve
range are being used for 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.
Viper
> Please remove 65.223.142.0-255 from this listing. No addresses in
> this range are being used for spam.
Yes they are because they are owned by UUNet who is a major spam supporter.
UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNET65 (NET-65-192-0-0-1)
65.192.0.0 - 65.223.255.255
TCS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC UU-65-223-142-D4 (NET-65-223-142-0-1)
65.223.142.0 - 65.223.142.255
Clemens W
> Please remove 65.223.142.0-255 from this listing. No addresses in
this
> range are being used for spam.
This is irrelevant. SPEWS lists spammers AND spam-friendly ISPs.
MCI/UUNet is BY FAR the worst spam-friendly ISP you could find.
Spamhaus.org shows that MCI/UUNet now hosts 189(!) known spammers, many
of them ROKSO.
You can see in S2955 how the listed IP range from MCI/UUNet was
gradually expanded because MCI/UUNet failed to do anything about their
spam problem:
1, 65.223.192.188/31, ns1.atriks.com / ns2.atriks.org
1, 65.223.192.190, atriks.com
1, 65.223.192.143, tickerbar.net
1, 65.223.192.153, transmitted.org
1, 65.223.192.177, cow1.domaincow.com
1, 65.223.192.178, cow2.domaincow.com
1, 65.223.192.142, virtualmda.com
1, 65.223.192.175, host175.atriks.com
1, 65.223.192.144, ns1.greenhorse.com / ns2.tickerbar.org
1, 65.223.192.128 - 65.223.192.191, atriks.com / "MAX MEDIA MARKETING"
(UUNet)
1, 65.223.192.0 - 65.223.192.255, UUNet (atriks.com / "MAX MEDIA
MARKETING")
1, 65.223.182.0 - 65.223.202.255, UUNet (atriks.com / "MAX MEDIA
MARKETING")
1, 65.223.172.0 - 65.223.212.255, UUNet (atriks.com / "MAX MEDIA
MARKETING")
1, 65.223.162.0 - 65.223.222.255, UUNet (atriks.com / "MAX MEDIA
MARKETING")
1, 65.223.152.0 - 65.223.242.255, UUNet (atriks.com / "MAX MEDIA
MARKETING")
1, 65.223.142.0 - 65.223.252.255, UUNet (atriks.com / "MAX MEDIA
MARKETING")
1, 65.223.132.0 - 65.224.6.255, UUNet (atriks.com / "MAX MEDIA
MARKETING")
As long as MCI/UUNet continues to act irresponsible and allows their
customers to spam us (tinu), this listing will not go away. Au
contraire, it will probably grow to encompass more and more of
MCI/UUNet.
In other words: You rented space in a sewer. Don't complain about the
stench.
You should also read this article:
http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=158
You now have the choice between the following 5 possible solutions:
1. Convince your provider to drop all the spammers he hosts. Once there
are no more spammers on this part of the internet, SPEWS is very likely
to delist you. Good luck.
2. Change to a more reputable provider that is not listed in SPEWS or
other blacklists. Post a timetable for the move and SPEWS might even
cut a temporary hole for you.
3. Smart-host outgoing mail. Disadvantage: You'll still pay money to a
spam-supporting company.
4. Ask your recipients to whitelist you. Disadvantage as above.
5. Live with the SPEWS listing. Disadvantage as above.
Good luck,
A. Friend
The usual disclaimer:
I am not SPEWS. We (tinw) are not SPEWS. All comments are just my
private opinion, based on my observations of former actions of SPEWS.
Don't expect SPEWS to answer. SPEWS speaks through actions, not words
Socks
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> As long as MCI/UUNet continues to act irresponsible and allows their
> customers to spam us (tinu), this listing will not go away. Au
> contraire, it will probably grow to encompass more and more of
> MCI/UUNet.
>
it should be noted that ISPs such as MCI that fail to terminate spamming
customers are subject to complete de-peering from the rest of the Internet.
We're not talking about SPEWS extendinf a /32 listing to a /24 or a /16.
We're talking about all packets, regardless of port (email, usenet, web,
etc) being refused. As the leading pink ISP on Spamhaus's top ten list,
MCI is a leading candidate for this.
http://www.linx.net/press/releases/103.thtml
Also read the ASTA statement from last June:
http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/pdf/asta_soi.pdf
If MCI doesn't start shutting down its 189 spammers, MCI runs the risk that
no one will talk to them.
Personally, I think the policies are overdue.
--
"Some witty person in rec.arts.sf.composition (I forget who) called them
feral apostrophes. Untamed, unregulated, they roam the wastes of the
English language and pop up where lea'st expected."
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Please remove 65.223.142.0-255 from this listing. No addresses in this
| range are being used for spam.
The issue is not about whether these addresses are being used for spam.
The real issue that has resulted in MCI/UUNet itself to be blacklisted
is the fact that MCI/UUNet is continuing to host spammers that they know
are spammers.
The intent is really like a boycott to pressure MCI/UUNet to stop hosting
spammers. But as long as MCI/UUNet feels they will not lose any customers,
they have no motive to stop the spammers. Hence the boycott to drive away
customers. And in fact it is working. Many are starting to leave.
Q: Why boycott the ISP and not just block the spam?
A: The costs incurred by the victims of spam do not go away just because
the spam is blocked. The only way to cut out the custs is to remove
the spammers.
Q: Why not make an exception for this customer?
A: That would be unfair to all the other customers of the ISP. If an
exception is made for one, it would have to be made for all. And then
that would make the whole boycott totally ineffective.
Q: What can I do about this?
A: Stop using MCI/UUNet. If you want to beat your head against a brick
wall first, you can call your MCI/UUNet representive and complain.
But they have already been trained to bad mouth the anti-spammers, so
this won't get you anywhere. Better start looking for another ISP now.
Q: I don't understand why the customers have to suffer.
A: Suppose you are a vendor at a mall. You pay rent for store space and
expect to get good traffic flow. But now mall management has decided
to make even more money by letting in street peddlers and beggars from
whom they charge a fee. These peddlers hassle the patrons, who have
now decided they won't go to the mall anymore.
Q: I'd have to pay more to switch ISP; how can this be right?
A: We have to pay a lot more than that just to deal with the abuses of
the spam attempts. The current estimate is that for every dollar a
spammer makes, it cost him about 25 cents to send, and about 20 cents
went to the ISP hosting him. But others ended up losing in expenses
about 4 to 8 dollars dealing with the overloads of equipment, bandwidth
wasted, and server process utilization, just to refuse the mail. It's
even more when the mail gets queued and people have to waste time to
skip over it. The cost to move pales in comparison to OUR cost to NOT
move.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clemens W
> We're talking about all packets, regardless of port (email, usenet,
web,
> etc) being refused. As the leading pink ISP on Spamhaus's top ten
list,
> MCI is a leading candidate for this.
Internet Death Penalty for MCI/UUNet??? Fine with me.
Maybe then the PHBs will wake up and realize what they've done.
Good luck,
A. Friend
Socks the Whitehouse Cat
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Socks wrote:
>> We're talking about all packets, regardless of port (email, usenet,
> web,
>> etc) being refused. As the leading pink ISP on Spamhaus's top ten
> list,
>> MCI is a leading candidate for this.
>
> Internet Death Penalty for MCI/UUNet??? Fine with me.
>
> Maybe then the PHBs will wake up and realize what they've done.
>
> Good luck,
>
> A. Friend
>
I've done it on one server. thinking about the second one.
Vint Cerf is getting an award from ACM this year for his contributions to
the Internet, particularly invention of TCP/IP. Notes to ACM protesting
his current contributions, as a senior executive in the number one spam
protecting organization in the world, seem appropriate.
--
8 out of 10 spammers agree, a heart was not the tin man's organ enhancement
of choice. --adapted from a valentines card