|
 |
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting
From: Andrew - Supernews <andrew+non...@supernews.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:30:08 GMT
Local: Wed, Aug 8 2007 11:30 am
Subject: Re: Help! APEWS blocked the World!
On 2007-08-03, Claus v. Wolfhausen <use-reply-to-mail...@remove-this.com>
wrote: > First let me say that i would have expected such an subject and that content It's hardly an opinion unique to Spamhaus. > from M.Ciprut, but not from the SPAMHAUS operator. > Really strange to see you are claiming your private opinions as facts here. The evidence of the non-use of APEWS is everywhere, from the fact that > You have no prove how many systems are using the APEWS lists and for what > reasons. You do not run their mirrors. almost no one complaining of a listing can produce a bounce message, to the fact that the participants of large high-profile mailing lists don't complain about (or even notice) the fact that the listserver is listed on APEWS. > Even if you would be right, and nobody would use that lists you should be Only if: > glad about every user calling his provider and complaining about spammers, > shouldn't you? a) the provider actually does have spammers Unless _all three_ of those conditions are met, it's not helpful for the Let's take an example. The /20 block that contains my home (static) DSL is There is exactly one recent hit in .sightings for that range (not from the There are no current CBL listings for that range. There are no hits for it in any of the spamtraps I have access to. Historical data suggests that there have been about four CBL listings over None of this indicates any deficiency on the part of the provider. There is So the listing is serving no purpose other than helping to guarantee that > Most providers panic if lots of customers are complaining because of spammers What's the point in escalating to a /16 when so often it'll end up crossing > 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. an allocation boundary and catching entirely unrelated ISPs? > It does not matter users are really at risk to get blocked or just got that In other words your purpose is simply to harass every ISP in the world, > imagination. What matters is the result only: > They will call their providers and complain about the spammers. regardless of whether they are keeping a clean network or not? > Real spamfighters should appreciate that, because it is helpfull to eliminate Real spamfighters know how to tell the difference between clean and dirty > the spam problem. networks. > The question is therfore: What is your problem with APEWS? The problem is not that they exist, or even their listing policy. The _only_ problem is this dishonest attempt to get users to complain to ISPs _even_ when the ISP is doing their job well, plus the noise generated in these groups as a result. > It seems to me you worry about who will pay you tomorrow, if APEWS This is the logical fallacy known as "ad hominem circumstantial". > would be sucessfull and spam disappear. _I_ don't get paid anything at all for fighting spam. > It is a fact that APEWS is using other DNSBL's searching spam sources. If I were you I'd stop that. Your defense of the stupidity of APEWS will > 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. quite quickly undo all your attempts to reverse the damage done to your own reputation by your former spokesman Mr. Steigenburger. It's also a fact that APEWS is _misusing_ other sources of data. The people > If you would be a real spamfighter, you would not knowingly ignore the worst Fortunately you don't get to decide who is a "real" spamfighter or not. > spamsewers, you would appreciate what APEWS does instead. > SORBS and UCEPROTECT would not mirror zones which "sucks". Matthew has already answered that one for SORBS. As for why uceprotect would choose to mirror a zone whose creation they were obviously closely involved in starting, well, that doesn't take much imagination to figure out. > That does not mean i recommend using APEWS for blocking. Well, for something to be useful in a scoring system, it needs to have some > In my opinion the APEWS lists are excellent as an advisory or to be used in positive predictive power. That is, the probability that the mail is spam, given that you know it is from a listed IP, must be higher than the probability it was spam before you looked up the listing. When the false-positive rate of a test is as high as its hit rate, then there -- -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||