Backscatterer.org is abusive too.
siversoncan
education, and I have made changes to my SPAM firewall and mail server
to the best of my ability to eliminate backscatter from my domain. So
far, I have not had any hits on a backscatterer.org spam trap for 6
days. I hope my changes continue to work well, and that no other
issues crop up. Unfortunately, I still have over three weeks to wait
until my server has a chance of being removed from Backscatterer's
list.
I have read UCEPROTECT's mission statement and "4 suggested steps
against email abuse" and I agree that if all mail servers follow their
rules then SPAM and Email viruses would likely be reduced
substantially, or perhaps eliminated in the world.
However, their statement regarding lazy administrators, is way off
target. Most email administrators that configure email servers to emit
backscatter are either just following the RFCs as they understand
them, or are not knowledgeable enough to configure the servers
properly. The problem we have in this part of the world, and I suspect
in the vast majority of it, is there are not enough qualified email
server administrators and technicians to get all the servers set up
properly in the first place. And the users that are hiring these
people are gretting caught as a result. The people that hire the
technicians often have very little knowledge about server
configuration requirements and therefore have no way to tell whether
or not that the people they hire have all the necessary skills to set
up their servers properly.
Unfortunately, quite often these people find out that some of the
emails they send, or should receive are just not getting through. Some
of these innocent email users have no idea what they need to do to fix
the problem, other than to use personal email accounts (yahoo,
hotmail, etc.) to get the emails through. Sometimes the emails are of
a timely nature and it is too late and damage has been done before the
problem has been discovered.
The lost emails I'm referring to are a result of two problems occuring
simultaneousy. The email sender is using a server that emits
backscatter, and the receiver is using backscatterer.org as a
blocklist.
Backscatterer.org is aware that creating, posting, and promoting their
blacklist is interfering with the delivery of genuine email. But, I
believe they are convinced that their response to backscatter is
warranted considering the amount of backscatter that is out there. I
don't know for sure how warranted it is, but I agree that backscatter
is an issue and it should be dealt with. And getting servers to
eliminate backscatter will go a ways to get the servers to block the
majority of SPAM. However any action that contributes to a situation
that prevents innocent users emails from getting through IMHO is an
abusive action. So I would like to suggest that both Backscatterer.org
and, by extension, UCEPROTECT look for another solution to this
problem.
My suggestion would be to get UCEPROTECTS "4 suggested steps" to be
considered a standard "best current practice" and then SPAM filter
manufacturers, and email server software vendors would get their
systems to use those methods by default. This would go a long way to
reducing SPAM.
Secondly, I would suggest that Backscatterer.org set thresholds,
shorten their blacklist time, and reduce their express delisting fee,
so their blacklist would not be so potentially abusive.
This is just my opinion.
I wonder how many others would agree with me.
Scott
--
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.
D. Stussy
news:4dbb4cd2-7f86-494a...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
As to administrators who don't have enough information to properly
configure a mail server: Either they weren't trained properly, haven't
kept up, or they were incompetent to begin with. If one is "going to play
with the big boys," there are rules. Granted, these rules change over
time. When I first started using e-mail (1980's), there was no such thing
as spam. Today, most mail (85%+; some estimate 90%+) is spam. In 2002,
the "openness" of the mail system was abused by spammers en-masse by
forging other valid users' mailboxes as senders. By 2004, we have some
partial solutions. We're now 5 years later, and guess what? We still have
rules, and they have changed yet again. NOT ALL THE RULES ARE GOING TO BE
IN RFCs. The current rules:
1) Protect your mailbox from abuse, else be called a spammer (or
collaborator).
2) Check for abuse by others, else be called a backscatterer.
Interpretation of rules, including RFCs: Yes, there may be some variation
if one looks at ONLY the standards and RFCs. Remember that they often lag
behind real-world changes. RFCs and Standard 10 have often POORLY
addressed the junk-e-mail problem. Even here, there has been a debate (in
another thread of this group) over whether compilance with the most current
RFC/Standard constitutes "misbehavior," specifically with regard to the
backscatter question. My view is that an RFC-REQUIRED action (or
standards-required action) by definition is NOT misbehavior.
The goal of the backscatterer list is to identify misbehavior. However,
its criteria always assumes that this misbehavior will be a remote
receiving system. As demonstrated elsewhere, the misbehavior can also be
the result of the forged mailbox owner failure to configure box usage
authorization and a properly behaving remote - and the list operators can't
tell the difference, and list the remote anyway because they want to "play
the blame game" where they're never at fault. (For details, look up the
OTHER discussions.)
> Unfortunately, quite often these people find out that some of the
> emails they send, or should receive are just not getting through. Some
> of these innocent email users have no idea what they need to do to fix
> the problem, other than to use personal email accounts (yahoo,
> hotmail, etc.) to get the emails through. Sometimes the emails are of
> a timely nature and it is too late and damage has been done before the
> problem has been discovered.
That's why if someone does something that breaks the standards (or proposed
standards changes in RFCs), they really need to issue their own RFC to make
any change known. There are alot of people who won't do that. Changes in
the rules need to be published, not merely referenced in someone's "crystal
ball."
> The lost emails I'm referring to are a result of two problems occuring
> simultaneousy. The email sender is using a server that emits
> backscatter, and the receiver is using backscatterer.org as a
> blocklist.
>
> Backscatterer.org is aware that creating, posting, and promoting their
> blacklist is interfering with the delivery of genuine email....
Intereference with legitimate mail only angers people. These people never
learned that. The SPEWS blacklist (now defunct) is the perfect example.
Maximization of collateral damage does NOT work as a spam deterrent.
Credibility of those lists that follow that model (e.g. APEWS or
UCE-Protect Level 3) is low.
> ... But, I believe they are convinced that their response to backscatter
is
> warranted considering the amount of backscatter that is out there. I
> don't know for sure how warranted it is, but I agree that backscatter
> is an issue and it should be dealt with. And getting servers to
> eliminate backscatter will go a ways to get the servers to block the
> majority of SPAM. However any action that contributes to a situation
> that prevents innocent users emails from getting through IMHO is an
> abusive action. So I would like to suggest that both Backscatterer.org
> and, by extension, UCEPROTECT look for another solution to this
> problem.
Yes, they are convinced. However, they fail to see that the problem isn't
these remote systems issuing DSNs in reply to messages. The problem is
with people failing to protect their mailboxes to prevent spammers from
abusing them (forging them as source) in the first place. The list
operator's analysis of the overall cause of the problem was poor, and their
solution is even poorer. They identifed the wrong cause because they
didn't follow the problem to its origin.
Granted, there are cases where there are "misbehaving" recipients that do
issue DSNs when they shouldn't (i.e. when a mailbox IS protected by
anti-forgery technology that tells the recipient that a message is a
forgery). However, the list operators fail to recognize that the current
standards say that when a mailbox is unprotected by anti-forgery
technology, this says that there are no forgeries, and that absent another
valid reason to suppress (e.g. virusmail, spam, etc.), a DSN is REQUIRED
for non-deliverable messages being relayed/forwarded. This does require
that ALL POSSIBLE checks for hostile content be done BEFORE accepting a
message (which is within the "best current practice"), but fail to
recognize that there are a very few checks that cannot be done at that time
(e.g. mailbox full - when the mailbox is at another host), and thus DSNs
are still possible. They believe that ALL DSNs are evil.
> My suggestion would be to get UCEPROTECTS "4 suggested steps" to be
> considered a standard "best current practice" and then SPAM filter
> manufacturers, and email server software vendors would get their
> systems to use those methods by default. This would go a long way to
> reducing SPAM.
That would require the RFC procedure.
> Secondly, I would suggest that Backscatterer.org set thresholds,
> shorten their blacklist time, and reduce their express delisting fee,
> so their blacklist would not be so potentially abusive.
For first offenses, I would tend to agree. They seem to know when an
address has been listed before and for how long, so this should be
possible. However, to change their listing criteria to MATCH their goal
instead of simply including their goal [plus other cases] would be a better
and higher priority improvement.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
07/29/2009
at 08:26 PM, siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> said:
>However, their statement regarding lazy administrators, is way off
>target. Most email administrators that configure email servers to emit
>backscatter are either just following the RFCs as they understand
>them,
If they don't read the RFC in its entirety then the statement about lazy
admins is on target.
>or are not knowledgeable enough to configure the servers properly.
That sounds like a good reason to block them.
>And the users that are hiring these
>people are gretting caught as a result.
As well they should. It's not the responsibility of their victims to pay
for their education.
>The lost emails I'm referring to are a result of two problems occuring
>simultaneousy. The email sender is using a server that emits
>backscatter, and the receiver is using backscatterer.org as a blocklist.
You don't have to limit your deny lists to what's on any DNSBL or group of
them. An admin who is hit by backscatter is perfectly capable of blocking
the source locally. The difference between a local listing and a DNSBL
listing is that the latter usually provides a means to get delisted,
whether that be a timeout or evidence that the problem has been solved.
The admin of an e-mail server has no reason to delist you unless and until
his users request it, and sometimes not even then.
>However any action that contributes to a situation that prevents
>innocent users emails from getting through IMHO is an
>abusive action.
There is nothing abusive about publishing accurate data on misconfigured
e-mail servers, and there is nothing abusive about giving 5yz responses to
messages from misconfigured e-mail servers.
>So I would like to suggest that both Backscatterer.org
>and, by extension, UCEPROTECT look for another solution to this problem.
Let us know when the Orson Swindle law has been passed in every country.
Until then boycotts and gated communities will remain necessary.
>and then SPAM filter manufacturers, and email server software vendors
>would get their systems to use those methods by default.
Why would they suddenly start paying attention to BCP's when they've been
ignoring RFC's all along?
>Secondly, I would suggest that Backscatterer.org set thresholds, shorten
>their blacklist time, and reduce their express delisting fee, so their
>blacklist would not be so potentially abusive.
I would suggest that they increase the TTL, raise the cost of express
delisting and provide disincentives for requesting express delisting
before the problem is actually fixed.
>so their blacklist would not be so potentially abusive.
They aren't.
--
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
> However any action that contributes to a situation that prevents
> innocent users emails from getting through IMHO is an abusive action.
>
say something like "Locking my front door to deter burglars prevents
innocent visitors from walking in without me opening-up. Therefore my
action in locking the door is an abusive action."
If backscatterer's listing criteria are reasonable (and you seem to say
they are), then it must be broken logic on your part to conclude that
the list is abusive.
--
MrD.
stinky
<4dbb4cd2-7f86-494a...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Backscatterer.org is aware that creating, posting, and promoting their
> blacklist is interfering with the delivery of genuine email.
Backscatterer.org DOES NOT block or interfere with any email delivery.
Those admins who use Backscatterer.org on their servers are the ones who
choose to interfere with the delivery of genuine email.
Backscatterer.org only provides a list of IP addresses. Maybe you should
be blaming ARIN (or the appropriate entity) for having control of IP
addresses
What exactly is genuine email? Spammers think their email is genuine,
main-sleaze thinks their email is genuine. Politicians ALWAYS think
their email is genuine. What defines genuine email?
.
siversoncan
> In article
> <4dbb4cd2-7f86-494a-8cd8-05ff3bd72...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
> siversoncan <greedysn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Backscatterer.org is aware that creating, posting, and promoting their
> > blacklist is interfering with the delivery of genuine email.
>
> Backscatterer.org DOES NOT block or interfere with any email delivery.
> Those admins who use Backscatterer.org on their servers are the ones who
> choose to interfere with the delivery of genuine email.
> Backscatterer.org only provides a list of IP addresses. Maybe you should
> be blaming ARIN (or the appropriate entity) for having control of IP
> addresses
Yes. It's true that I could appeal to all the admins that are blocking
me due to the blacklisting. However I don't have the contact
information for all the admins that I might eventually send email
through their domains, and even if I did they would probably block
those emails.
There is only one organisation that can completely eliminate the
problem of my emails not getting through to recipients that are using
the Backscatterer.org blacklist to block emails. In case you haven't
already guessed, they are Backscatterer.org
> What exactly is genuine email? Spammers think their email is genuine,
> main-sleaze thinks their email is genuine. Politicians ALWAYS think
> their email is genuine. What defines genuine email?
I thiink you already know what I mean, but for clarity I mean emails
that are not SPAM. I think everyone reading these forums has a pretty
good idea what SPAM is.
siversoncan
> siversoncan wrote:
> > However any action that contributes to a situation that prevents
> > innocent users emails from getting through IMHO is an abusive action.
>
> That sounds reasonable enough, on the face of it; but one could equally
> say something like "Locking my front door to deter burglars prevents
> innocent visitors from walking in without me opening-up. Therefore my
> action in locking the door is an abusive action."
>
> If backscatterer's listing criteria are reasonable (and you seem to say
> they are), then it must be broken logic on your part to conclude that
> the list is abusive.
No. Your analogy is invalid, because I have a right to decide who goes
into my dwelling.
I do not have a right to stop people from making a similar decision
about there own dwellings.
It is generally accepted that you need the owner's permission to go
onto their property.
Backscatterer.org says here is a list of people who have ventured onto
my property without my permission.
You can use this list if you like to stop these peope from going onto
yours.
That seems reasonable enough except for one point. Too many people who
use these lists don't understand in what way the people on the lists
have trespassed and are using the list to stop them from even asking
for permission to gain entry.
In the case of email, generally everyone gives permission to people
who behave well enough no matter where they are from, and this is well
known.
In fact, most people (aside from deliberate spammers, who know they
are not welcome) know that the door is always kept open and that they
can visit whenever they like. They are almost universally surprised
when they find the door closed.
Backscatterer.org knows that there are millions of email servers and
that an unknown non-zero percentage of these servers are misusing
their list and blocking legitimate emails from getting through. They
are allowing people to use their list that way even though it is
listed on their website as a misuse. They have a variety of means at
their disposal to prevent this misuse and they are only using the
weakest one, which in my opinion means they are contributing to the
misuse.
I have another suggestion for Backscatterer.org. Why not only provide
access to the list on a pay per use basis. Each admin that wants to
add this list to their server would have to submit an explanation as
to how it will be used. I bet that would cut down the misuse a great
deal.
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
> Too many people who use these lists don't understand in
> what way the people on the lists have trespassed and are
> using the list to stop them from even asking for permission
> to gain entry.
(Shrug) The recipient is king, it is up to them to decide
what is accepted for delivery or not.
If the recipient's mail server Admin does something
in their spam control, access control, ... that prevents
the delivery of messages the recipient wants / needs / expects.
The recipient can either live with it,
get the Admin to change it to meet the recipient's needs,
or find a ISP that will meet their needs.
It is no one else's problem to solve, if a Admin implements
policies that their own end users don't like.
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Anitech-Systems.com>
will be added to the BlackLists.
wuffa
spamers and spaming is not why Your IP is on Backscatterer.org.
your IP is lists for Backscatter
the wiki says in part
"Backscatter (also known as outscatter, misdirected bounces, blowback
or collateral spam) is a side-effect of e-mail spam, viruses and
worms, where email servers receiving spam and other mail send bounce
messages to an innocent party. This occurs because the original
message's envelope sender is forged to contain the e-mail address of
the victim. A very large proportion of such e-mail is sent with a
forged From: header, matching the envelope sender.
Since these messages were not solicited by the recipients, are
substantially similar to each other, and are delivered in bulk
quantities, they qualify as unsolicited bulk email or spam. As such,
systems that generate e-mail backscatter can end up being listed on
various DNSBLs and be in violation of internet service providers'
Terms of Service."
"Cause
The root cause of the problem is mail servers accepting email which,
after further checking, they refuse - for example because they believe
it to be spam. Mail servers can handle spam in three fundamentally
different ways:
* Reject. A receiving server can reject the incoming email while
the sending server is still connected. If a message is rejected at
connect time with a 5xx error code then the sending server can report
the problem to the real sender cleanly.
* Drop. A receiving server can initially accept the full message,
but then determine that it is spam, and quarantine it - delivering to
"Junk" or "Spam" folders from where it will eventually be deleted
automatically. This is common behaviour, even though RFC 5321 says:
"...silent dropping of messages should be considered only in those
cases where there is very high confidence that the messages are
seriously fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate..."
* Bounce. A receiving server can initially accept the full
message, but then determine that it is spam, and generate a bounce
message back to the supposed sender indicating that message delivery
failed.
The "bounce" approach is the cause of backscatter when the sender
information on the incoming email was forged - as is very common.
[edit] Reducing the problem
There are two approaches to reducing backscatter. The first is to
reject as much mail as possible at the initial SMTP connection stage;
and the second to send bounce messages only to addresses where various
checks have confirmed that the address has not been forged.
[edit] Connection-stage rejection
A range of protocol-based techniques can be used by servers to reject
during the initial SMTP connection:
* Recipient validation[1][2][3]
* Anti-forgery checks such as SPF, DKIM or Sender ID
* Servers that do not have a forward-confirmed reverse DNS entry
* Senders on block lists[4].
* Temporary rejection via greylisting methods
* Mail transfer agents (MTAs) which forward mail can avoid
generating backscatter by using a transparent SMTP proxy.
Due to controversial aspects of its design, the stock (unpatched)
qmail mailserver cannot do "recipient validation" to reject messages
during SMTP transactions[5]. When email addressed to nonexistent
recipients cannot be rejected at the SMTP connection, the only
alternative is to auto-reply to the sender address, which causes email
backscatter if the sender address is valid and forged[6].
Rejecting a message will usually cause the sending MTA to generate a
bounce message or Non-Delivery Notification (NDN) to a local,
authenticated user. Alternatively, if the MTA is relaying the message,
it should only send such an NDN to a plausible originator as indicated
in the reverse-path [7], e.g. where an SPF check has passed.
[edit] "
so you need to stop with the Non-Delivery Notification, and start with
the reject messages during SMTP transactions
or some such systems during SMTP transactions. when you will be
delisted
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
> Yes. It's true that I could appeal to all the admins that
> are blocking me due to the blacklisting.
> However I don't have the contact information for all the
> admins that I might eventually send email through their
> domains, and even if I did they would probably block
> those emails.
> There is only one organisation that can completely
> eliminate the problem of my emails not getting through
> to recipients that are using the Backscatterer.org
> blacklist to block emails. In case you haven't already
> guessed, they are Backscatterer.org
(Shrug) That is an issue with any / all DNSbls.
DNSbls should list when their listing criteria is met,
and delist when their delisting criteria is met;
Not much more need to be done for them to be working
correctly.
Despite the wishes of the listed, it is not necessary
to hold their hands (although doing so would be more
productive for the listed, and possibly result in the
listed not getting relisted in the future).
Those listed who don't like the policies of the DNSbls,
are unlikely to come up with convincing arguments
for the list maintainer, to make significant changes
in their listing or delisting policies.
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Anitech-Systems.com>
will be added to the BlackLists.
--
DevilsPGD
<84ac10f1-6f76-4b79...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>No. Your analogy is invalid, because I have a right to decide who goes
>into my dwelling.
So it's agreed that my mail server is my property, and therefore I can
choose who can enter?
>I do not have a right to stop people from making a similar decision
>about there own dwellings.
Agreed wholeheartedly. You can't tell me who I can or cannot permit
onto my property, only I can make that decision, and I can make that
decision any way I like.
>It is generally accepted that you need the owner's permission to go
>onto their property.
Also very true.
>Backscatterer.org says here is a list of people who have ventured onto
>my property without my permission.
I prefer "a list of permitted guests who pooped on my carpet", the
guests were initially welcomed and only after bad behaviour were they
less then welcome to return.
>You can use this list if you like to stop these peope from going onto
>yours.
>That seems reasonable enough except for one point.
Here it comes:
>Too many people who
>use these lists don't understand in what way the people on the lists
>have trespassed and are using the list to stop them from even asking
>for permission to gain entry.
I'm a little confused here, you just said you do not have the right to
stop a property owner from making decisions about who can enter a
property, right?
If a mail server administrator is making poor decisions, you're
certainly free to express your opinion, but ultimately, the decision is
up to the mail server administrator.
>Backscatterer.org knows that there are millions of email servers and
>that an unknown non-zero percentage of these servers are misusing
>their list and blocking legitimate emails from getting through.
And? Backscatterer.org isn't a list of senders that only send spam,
it's a list of servers that send backscatter.
I don't care how charming a house guest is, certainly types of bad
behaviour simply aren't tolerable and will result in an individual no
longer being welcome at my house, and I'll most certainly tell mutual
friends about the problem with a particular guest too.
Whether my friends choose to invite that same individual into their
homes is their choice, not mine.
See the parallel here? -- backscatterer.org isn't blocking listee's
mail, the recipient chooses to take backscatterer.org's advice on what
mail to block.
(For the record, I don't use backscatterer.org right now, I use BATV
instead, which has it's own set of ups and downs, but I'm likely to
start scoring backscatterer.org listees as "poorly maintained servers")
D. Stussy
> On Jul 30, 12:31 pm, MrD <mrdemean...@jackpot.invalid> wrote:
> > siversoncan wrote:
> > > However any action that contributes to a situation that prevents
> > > innocent users emails from getting through IMHO is an abusive action.
> >
> > That sounds reasonable enough, on the face of it; but one could equally
> > say something like "Locking my front door to deter burglars prevents
> > innocent visitors from walking in without me opening-up. Therefore my
> > action in locking the door is an abusive action."
> >
> > If backscatterer's listing criteria are reasonable (and you seem to say
> > they are), then it must be broken logic on your part to conclude that
> > the list is abusive.
>
> No. Your analogy is invalid, because I have a right to decide who goes
> into my dwelling.
> I do not have a right to stop people from making a similar decision
> about there own dwellings.
> It is generally accepted that you need the owner's permission to go
> onto their property.
>
> Backscatterer.org says here is a list of people who have ventured onto
> my property without my permission.
Your analogy fails too. These remote systems DO have permission because
either you sent them a message OR permitted a spammer to do ON YOUR BEHALF
so by not protecting your mailbox to prevent such.
If you don't want DSNs to messages that some spammer sent, YOU have the
responsibility to protect your mailbox.
ONLY when a mailbox is protected and you still get DSNs to messages that
weren't sent from your permitted senders do these DSNs constitute
backscatter.
> You can use this list if you like to stop these peope from going onto
yours.
> That seems reasonable enough except for one point. Too many people who
> use these lists don't understand in what way the people on the lists
> have trespassed and are using the list to stop them from even asking
> for permission to gain entry.
That's not the fault, responsibility, nor problem of the list owner.
> In the case of email, generally everyone gives permission to people
> who behave well enough no matter where they are from, and this is well
> known.
And well ABUSED by spammers.
> In fact, most people (aside from deliberate spammers, who know they
> are not welcome) know that the door is always kept open and that they
> can visit whenever they like. They are almost universally surprised
> when they find the door closed.
>
> Backscatterer.org knows that there are millions of email servers and
> that an unknown non-zero percentage of these servers are misusing
> their list and blocking legitimate emails from getting through. They
> are allowing people to use their list that way even though it is
> listed on their website as a misuse. They have a variety of means at
> their disposal to prevent this misuse and they are only using the
> weakest one, which in my opinion means they are contributing to the
> misuse.
Again, not the list owner's problem.
However, listing systems for backscatter in cases when the mailbox owners
are at fault IS the list owner's problem. Such gets reflected in the [lack
of] credibility of the list.
> I have another suggestion for Backscatterer.org. Why not only provide
> access to the list on a pay per use basis. Each admin that wants to
> add this list to their server would have to submit an explanation as
> to how it will be used. I bet that would cut down the misuse a great
> deal.
Then no one except the list owner would use it. Great idea!
Andrzej Adam Filip
> In article
> <4dbb4cd2-7f86-494a...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Backscatterer.org is aware that creating, posting, and promoting their
>> blacklist is interfering with the delivery of genuine email.
>
> Backscatterer.org DOES NOT block or interfere with any email delivery.
> Those admins who use Backscatterer.org on their servers are the ones who
> choose to interfere with the delivery of genuine email.
> Backscatterer.org only provides a list of IP addresses. Maybe you should
> be blaming ARIN (or the appropriate entity) for having control of IP
> addresses
> [...]
Backstatter.org *FAILS* to provide separate codes for servers listed for
backscatter and servers listed for "sender verification".
I do not deny "right" to list for both. I do deny right for listing both
without any distinction by professional and honest operator.
--
[pl>en Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : an...@onet.eu : Andrze...@gmail.com
A sine curve goes off to infinity, or at least the end of the blackboard.
-- Prof. Steiner
MrD
>
> Backstatter.org *FAILS* to provide separate codes for servers listed
> for backscatter and servers listed for "sender verification".
I agree that it would be nice if the list could discriminate between the
two kinds of trouble. The set of servers that attempt to verify senders
and the set of servers that send NDRs to non-existent mailboxes are
disjoint. There's no particular link between verifying senders and
emitting inappropriate DSNs (other than perhaps an inconsiderate
mail.admin).
I myself would rely on one list but not the other. I imagine quite a lot
of people might take a similar posture.
>
> I do not deny "right" to list for both. I do deny right for listing
> both without any distinction by professional and honest operator.
Oh, but the view that I take is just that - a view! It's got nothing to
do with what's right and what's wrong (and it's got nothing to do with
whether Backscatterer is entitled to list whatever it wants, if that's
what you meant by "right").
--
MrD.
stinky
<6fa7fd1d-4571-43b7...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > What exactly is genuine email? Spammers think their email is genuine,
> > main-sleaze thinks their email is genuine. Politicians ALWAYS think
> > their email is genuine. What defines genuine email?
>
> I thiink you already know what I mean, but for clarity I mean emails
> that are not SPAM. I think everyone reading these forums has a pretty
> good idea what SPAM is.
You might be surprised by the answers you receive about what is spam.
stinky
<84ac10f1-6f76-4b79...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have another suggestion for Backscatterer.org. Why not only provide
> access to the list on a pay per use basis. Each admin that wants to
> add this list to their server would have to submit an explanation as
> to how it will be used. I bet that would cut down the misuse a great
> deal.
That would lead to lawsuits. Especially in the US where lawsuits are a
malignant cancer.
stinky
<84ac10f1-6f76-4b79...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Too many people who
> use these lists don't understand in what way the people on the lists
> have trespassed and are using the list to stop them from even asking
> for permission to gain entry.
Then they are fools for using a list without studying what the listing
criteria is. I personally don't use the list but I support them being
able to provide a list as long as it meets its posted criteria.
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
> Backstatter.org *FAILS* to provide separate codes for
> servers listed for backscatter and servers listed for
> "sender verification".
>
> I do not deny "right" to list for both. I do deny right
> for listing both without any distinction by professional
> and honest operator.
<Sarcasm>
... and then there are those random number based DNSbls,
that have the unmitigated gall to not differentiate fibonacci,
prime, and other numbers that belong to number series from
other inferior whole numbers that may or may not be listed
by a random number DNSbl; How dare they!
</Sarcasm>
Sounds delusional to me for you to think you can deny someone
else's rights.
{Unless you happen to be some dictator of a third world country
I never heard of, (and then only till the next military coup,
uprising by the peasants, or other circumstances that lead
to the next supreme leaders face to be put on the currency
for perhaps a few years).}
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Griffin-Technologies.net>
will be added to the BlackLists.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 02:11 PM, Andrzej Adam Filip <andrze...@gmail.com> said:
>Backstatter.org *FAILS* to provide separate codes for servers listed for
>backscatter and servers listed for "sender verification".
While that datum might be useful, they have no obligation to provide it. I
agree that it would be nice, but their list, their rules. Their only
obligation is to ensure the accuracy of their published data.
>I do deny right for listing both
>without any distinction by professional and honest operator.
I deny your right to post on Usenet without disclosing your place of birth
and your blood type. What gives you the right to dictate how they
aggregate their data, as long as they are truthful?
--
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
07/31/2009
at 03:38 PM, siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> said:
>No. Your analogy is invalid,
The fact that you don't understand it does not render it invalid.
>I do not have a right to stop people from making a similar decision
>about there own dwellings.
See, I told you that you didn't understand it. Backscatterer.org does not
have the ability to prevent a mail server from accepting your e-mail. They
do have the ability, *AND THE RIGHT*, to publish their data, and an e-mail
administrator has the right to take their data into account. There is no
compulsion involved.
>That seems reasonable enough except for one point. Too many people who
>use these lists don't understand in what way the people on the lists
>have trespassed and are using the list to stop them from even asking for
>permission to gain entry.
Wishful thinking, and irrelevant. How many is "too many"? Where are your
data to show that that many exist?
If a restaurant reviewer complains about slow service and you use the
review to decide that there is a risk of food poisoning, that's your
fault, not the reviewer's. If your name is on a list of people who spit on
the floor while drunk and I refuse to admit you to my house even when
you're sober, that's your problem, not a misuse of the list.
>In the case of email, generally everyone gives permission to people who
>behave well enough no matter where they are from,
Where are your data?
>and this is well known.
Nonsense.
>Backscatterer.org knows that there are millions of email servers and
>that an unknown non-zero percentage of these servers are misusing their
>list and blocking legitimate emails from getting through.
You have demonstrated neither "misused" nor "legitimate". Ignoring their
recommendation is only misuse if you don't understand the consequences,
and the mail admin decides what inbound messages are legitimate: his
server, his rules.
>I have another suggestion for Backscatterer.org. Why not only provide
>access to the list on a pay per use basis.
I'm sure that the only reason is that they had never thought of it until
you suggested it. Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
>Each admin that wants to add this list to their server would have to
>submit an explanation as to how it will be used.
It's generous of you to offer reimbursement for the administrative
expenses.
>I bet that would cut down the misuse a great deal.
In the sense that it would cut down on the use of the list, period. Be
careful what you ask for, you might get it. Right now most servers using
the list will automatically stop blocking you once you fix the problem and
the entry times out. Force everybody to maintain their own local lists and
they might never remove you.
--
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 11:25 PM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the
BlackLists <Nu...@BlackList.Anitech-Systems.invalid> said:
> The recipient can either live with it,
> get the Admin to change it to meet the recipient's needs,
> or find a ISP that will meet their needs.
4. Get the sender to use a different provider.
I've asked my provider a couple of times why e-mail messages to me were
rejected. Each time I've explicitly stated that I was NOT requesting
whitelisting.
--
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
--
DevilsPGD
stinky <ste...@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>In article
><84ac10f1-6f76-4b79...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have another suggestion for Backscatterer.org. Why not only provide
>> access to the list on a pay per use basis. Each admin that wants to
>> add this list to their server would have to submit an explanation as
>> to how it will be used. I bet that would cut down the misuse a great
>> deal.
>
>That would lead to lawsuits. Especially in the US where lawsuits are a
>malignant cancer.
huh? How would restricting access to a list developed and maintained
in-house generate lawsuits?
siversoncan
because they contribute to an action that harms innocents.
I can see that most people that visit this site do not agree, because
most of them are admins, and think it is their own fault if they
misconfigure a mnail server. But they seem to forget that not all
people sending emails are admins. I can also see that their is also
not a lot of consensus to be found here so it must be a very
contentious subject.
I was commenting on another person's analogy that said "I might as
well call someone abusive for locking their door," and I don't think
the analogy is valid.
Basically this is a freedom of expression issue. Backscatterer.org is
free to express their list and is not responsible for how others use
it. Their list doesn't even have to be correct. They still have the
freedom to express it. Just the same, I have the freedom to express
myself. That's what these forums are all about. However expression can
be abusive, and what is abusive is entirely subjective.
For example. You can see a fire, then run into a crowded hall and yell
"Fire! Fire!" repeatedly and watch the stampede to the exits. It's not
your fault that some people paniced and trampled some other people,
but you might have known better. You didn't directly cause any
injuries, and you had the right to express yourself, but was that
expression abusive? I suppose it would depend on who you asked. What
if the fire you saw was two blocks away in a barbecue pit? You still
saw a fire so you were truthful. Does the truth change whether or not
the actions are abusive? What if it was an accident and you had no
idea that people would stampede to the exits. Surely that is not
abusive. However would it be alright then to go to another crouded
hall and do the same thing? Would it be okay to go to many other
crouded halls and do the same thing simply because you have a right to
express yourself? Not in my opinion.
What I am trying to show here is that free expression, even though it
is a right, should be used judiciously to avoid contributing to a
harmful environment.
Backscatterer.org is by their expression contributing to an
environment that harms innocent email users. It is their right, but it
might not be good behavior.
They are not telling anyone to use their list as an email blocklist,
and yet they publish and promote it even though they are aware of the
environment it creates.
I should have known better than to misconfigure my server?
I didn't misconfigure it, I was not the tech who set it up.
I should have hired technicians that knew what they were doing?
The technicians had been recommended by Citrix Systems as a Gold
Authorized Dealer. Citrix is a large and well reputed company.
I used the wrong technician and the wrong appliance, now I have to pay
extra to get this done properly. Oh well, too bad for me.
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
> huh? How would restricting access to a list developed
> and maintained in-house generate lawsuits?
In the US, especially lawsuit happy places like CA, the sun
being out (or not out) is likely to generate lawsuits.
Restricting access to a DNSbl is no more or less likely
to end up in court than other frivolous lawsuits,
however if you add money in any context, more lawyers
are likely to crawl out of ... (whatever they live under),
regardless of if there really ends up any money to be had.
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Anitech-Systems.com>
will be added to the BlackLists.
stinky
DevilsPGD <Death...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> In message <steenky-5D3E70...@unknown.usenetserver.com>
> stinky <ste...@gmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><84ac10f1-6f76-4b79...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> > siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have another suggestion for Backscatterer.org. Why not only provide
> >> access to the list on a pay per use basis. Each admin that wants to
> >> add this list to their server would have to submit an explanation as
> >> to how it will be used. I bet that would cut down the misuse a great
> >> deal.
> >
> >That would lead to lawsuits. Especially in the US where lawsuits are a
> >malignant cancer.
>
> huh? How would restricting access to a list developed and maintained
> in-house generate lawsuits?
By charging for it. If there is a money trail people will go after it.
The E-360 case is proof enough. Too bad spamhaus has no assets in the US
to go after.
.
Seth
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>If a restaurant reviewer complains about slow service and you use the
>review to decide that there is a risk of food poisoning, that's your
>fault, not the reviewer's.
Yes.
> If your name is on a list of people who spit on
>the floor while drunk and I refuse to admit you to my house even when
>you're sober, that's your problem, not a misuse of the list.
It _is_ a misuse of the list. It's your right to use it that way,
too. Whose problem it is depends on who loses when he can't enter
your house.
It's a misuse of noprimes.org that my home mail server uses it to
block mail. So?
Seth
Seth
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists <Nu...@BlackList.Griffin-Technologies.invalid> wrote:
>Andrzej Adam Filip wrote:
> > I do not deny "right" to list for both. I do deny right
> > for listing both without any distinction by professional
> > and honest operator.
>Sounds delusional to me for you to think you can deny someone
> else's rights.
He certainly can. Look at his message; he did.
"To deny" is a form of speech (in this context). He can deny anything
he wants to.
Of course, nobody else has to care.
I deny your right to use the letter "q" in your next posting.
_Effective_ denial is, of course, quite another issue.
Seth
Seth
siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have another suggestion for Backscatterer.org. Why not only provide
>access to the list on a pay per use basis. Each admin that wants to
>add this list to their server would have to submit an explanation as
>to how it will be used. I bet that would cut down the misuse a great
>deal.
Why don't you provide access to your writings only on a pay per use
basis, where anyone who wants to read them would have to submit an
explanation as to how they might reply? I bet that would cut down on
flames a great deal.
The fact thay they prefer to make their list freely available is all
the reason they need to do so. For the goal of their list to improve
the behavior of servers, making it freely available is clearly the
better option.
Seth
Seth
D. Stussy <rep...@newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
>"siversoncan" <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:84ac10f1-6f76-4b79...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>> Backscatterer.org says here is a list of people who have ventured onto
>> my property without my permission.
>
>Your analogy fails too. These remote systems DO have permission
They do not have permission *of the mailbox owner*. They have
permission *from D. Stussy*.
> because either you sent them a message OR permitted a spammer to do
>ON YOUR BEHALF so by not protecting your mailbox to prevent such.
There is, of course, no way to prevent a spammer from forging any
mailbox, as anybody who can speak telnet can easily verify.
>If you don't want DSNs to messages that some spammer sent, YOU have the
>responsibility to protect your mailbox.
I suggest using backscatterer.org as one possible means of so doing.
>ONLY when a mailbox is protected and you still get DSNs to messages that
>weren't sent from your permitted senders do these DSNs constitute
>backscatter.
The isn't the definition backscatterer.org uses, nor the one I use,
nor most others.
>> Backscatterer.org knows that there are millions of email servers and
>> that an unknown non-zero percentage of these servers are misusing
>> their list and blocking legitimate emails from getting through.
So what? Am I responsible because someone uses noprimes.org to block
mail, some of which might even be legitimate?
>> They are allowing people to use their list that way even though it
>> is listed on their website as a misuse. They have a variety of
>> means at their disposal to prevent this misuse
But not so many that preserve the benefits of proper use.
>> and they are only using the weakest one, which in my opinion means
>> they are contributing to the misuse.
Their server, their ruless. If you think there are better ways, show
us. Se up your DNSBL and compete them into irrelevancy.
>Again, not the list owner's problem.
Right.
>However, listing systems for backscatter in cases when the mailbox owners
>are at fault IS the list owner's problem.
The list owner is listing systems according to the list owner's
specified and posted criteria. Doing anything else is just wrong.
If you want a list the uses _your_ criteria, go ahead and run one.
> Such gets reflected in the [lack of] credibility of the list.
Exactly. And based on the whining we've seen about it, the list
clearly has enough crediblity for usage by many.
Seth
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
08/04/2009
at 08:21 PM, siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> said:
>Like I said it is my opinion, that Backscatterer.org is being abusive
>because they contribute to an action that harms innocents.
Innocent people work in dangerous parts of town, and if we shop only in
safe parts of town we hurt those innocent people. That doesn't make our
prudence wrong.
>But they seem to forget that not all
>people sending emails are admins.
Then you don't understand their position. It's not that they forget, it's
that they have an obligation to protect their own users and organizations.
>Basically this is a freedom of expression issue.
Yes; my freedom of expression means that *I* control what messages are
transmitted using my property. Freedom of the press belongs to the man who
owns the press. You want to infringe on the freedom of those who operate
DNSBL's and mail servers.
>I have the freedom to express myself.
And we (TINW) have the right to point out the errors in what you post.
>For example. You can see a fire, then run into a crowded hall and yell
>"Fire! Fire!" repeatedly and watch the stampede to the exits. It's not
>your fault that some people paniced and trampled some other people, but
>you might have known better.
Do you believe that it would be better for the audience to burn to death?
>What if the fire you saw was two blocks away in a barbecue pit?
That's not remotely analogous to what a DNSBL does.
>What I am trying to show here is that free expression, even though it is
>a right, should be used judiciously to avoid contributing to a harmful
>environment.
No, you are trying to allege abuse where there is no abuse. You have
presented no data to support your claims that many, or indeed any, DNSBL,
fails to express itself judiciously.
>They are not telling anyone to use their list as an email blocklist, and
>yet they publish and promote it even though they are aware of the
>environment it creates.
They warn potential users to only use it to reject messages with null
senders. If I use it inappropriately, then my users should take it up with
me, not with the DNSBL operators.
You seem to be mor3e concerned with the senders than with the recipients.
However, if the senders are unhappy then they should take it up with their
admins and get them to fix their mail servers.
>I was not the tech who set it up.
It's still your responsibility.
>The technicians had been recommended by Citrix Systems
If citrix gave you bad advice then take it up with them.
>Citrix is a large and well reputed company.
Neither of which is a guaranty of quality.
>I used the wrong technician and the wrong appliance, now I have to pay
>extra to get this done properly.
Welcome to the real world. The Internet judges you on your behavior, not
on the reputations of your advisors. In the future you may want to be less
trusting.
--
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
siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Like I said it is my opinion, that Backscatterer.org is being abusive
>because they contribute to an action that harms innocents.
Doesn't everybody, in one way or another? "Contribute to" is a very
large category.
>I can see that most people that visit this site do not agree, because
>most of them are admins, and think it is their own fault if they
>misconfigure a mnail server. But they seem to forget that not all
>people sending emails are admins.
Most people aren't. Most of my email is sent via servers I don't
administrate. So? If the administrators are incompetent, it's my
choice to continue pyaing them or not.
>Basically this is a freedom of expression issue. Backscatterer.org is
>free to express their list and is not responsible for how others use
>it. Their list doesn't even have to be correct. They still have the
>freedom to express it. Just the same, I have the freedom to express
>myself. That's what these forums are all about.
Sure. But you might consider that reasoned, supported, expressions
tend to be given much more weight than others.
> However expression can
>be abusive, and what is abusive is entirely subjective.
Then it doesn't matter, does it? Except for those (few) people whose
opinions are inherently important to me (due to our relationships), or
others who I wish to influence, the subjective opinions of the vast
majority of people just don't matter.
>What I am trying to show here is that free expression, even though it
>is a right, should be used judiciously to avoid contributing to a
>harmful environment.
So the "free expression" of admins who misconfigure their servers to
send me thousands of "bounces" for email I never sent is abusive and
should be avoided, right?
>Backscatterer.org is by their expression contributing to an
>environment that harms innocent email users.
It also protects others. As someone who is more likely to be
protected than harmed, I'm in favor of what they do.
> It is their right, but it might not be good behavior.
If there were no misconfigured servers that attack me, their behavior
wouldn't matter.
>They are not telling anyone to use their list as an email blocklist,
>and yet they publish and promote it even though they are aware of the
>environment it creates.
It creates an environment in which I get less spam. I think that's a
good thing.
It creates an environment in which incompetent admins have more
trouble getting mail delivered, leading to them becoming more likely
to become competent, or more likely to become ex-admins; again, I see
those as good things.
>I should have known better than to misconfigure my server?
>I didn't misconfigure it, I was not the tech who set it up.
Then you paid someone incompetent. Are you going to make that mistake
again?
>I should have hired technicians that knew what they were doing?
Yes.
>The technicians had been recommended by Citrix Systems as a Gold
>Authorized Dealer. Citrix is a large and well reputed company.
Now you know what their reputation is worth, and presumably your
experience has led to the lessening of it. I believe that bringing
beliefs more in line with reality is a good thing.
>I used the wrong technician and the wrong appliance, now I have to pay
>extra to get this done properly. Oh well, too bad for me.
Who do you think _should_ pay because you chose incorrectly? If you
want Citrix to share in the cost, that's fine with me.
Seth
Seth
siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I thiink you already know what I mean, but for clarity I mean emails
>that are not SPAM. I think everyone reading these forums has a pretty
>good idea what SPAM is.
Yes: it's stuff made by Hormel and sold in grocery stores.
Seth
Andrzej Adam Filip <andrze...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I do not deny "right" to list for both. I do deny right for listing both
>without any distinction by professional and honest operator.
You may deny whatever you wish.
Of course, your permission is not required, so your denial is
irrelevant.
I grant them the right to list whatever they want according to
whatever criteria they publish.
Seth
Seth
siversoncan <greed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Backscatterer.org knows that there are millions of email servers and
>that an unknown non-zero percentage of these servers are misusing
>their list and blocking legitimate emails from getting through. They
>are allowing people to use their list that way even though it is
>listed on their website as a misuse. They have a variety of means at
>their disposal to prevent this misuse and they are only using the
>weakest one, which in my opinion means they are contributing to the
>misuse.
How can backscatterer.org know whether another server is sending it a
query due to MAIL FROM <> or MAIL FROM <j...@foo.example.com>? It gets
the same DNS request either way.
>I have another suggestion for Backscatterer.org. Why not only provide
>access to the list on a pay per use basis.
That would reduce usage of the list, which is not their goal.
> Each admin that wants to add this list to their server would have to
>submit an explanation as to how it will be used. I bet that would cut
>down the misuse a great deal.
It would cut down on use even further. They're concerned with
providing benefits to people who use their list properly.
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
> siversoncan wrote:
>> Backscatterer.org knows that there are millions of email
>> servers and that an unknown non-zero percentage of these
>> servers are misusing their list and blocking legitimate
>> emails from getting through.
>> They are allowing people to use their list that way even
>> though it is listed on their website as a misuse.
>> They have a variety of means at their disposal to prevent
>> this misuse and they are only using the weakest one,
>> which in my opinion means they are contributing to the
>> misuse.
Manufactures of hand tools know there are millions of
hand tool users, and that a known non-zero percentage
of these users are misusing their tools.
e.g. <http://google.com/search?q=tool+abuse>
<http://google.com/search?q=hammer+abuse>
<http://google.com/search?q=hammer+assault>
<http://google.com/search?q=screwdriver+stab>
They are allowing people to use their tools that way
even though it is listed on their website as a misuse.
e.g. <http://ampcosafetytools.com/chart.pdf>
<http://www.ecmag.com/?fa=article&articleID=6306>
> How can backscatterer.org know whether another server is
> sending it a query due to MAIL FROM <> or MAIL FROM
> <j...@foo.example.com>?
> It gets the same DNS request either way.
>
>> I have another suggestion for Backscatterer.org.
>> Why not only provide access to the list on a pay per use basis.
Why not have those hand tool manufacturers provide access
to the tools on a pay per use basis?
> That would reduce usage of the list, which is not their goal.
>
>> Each admin that wants to add this list to their server
>> would have to submit an explanation as to how it will
>> be used. I bet that would cut down the misuse a great deal.
Each users that wants to add a hand tool to their tool box
(tool chest, tool belt, ...) would have to submit an
explanation as to how it will be used? I bet that would
cut down the misuse a great deal.
> It would cut down on use even further.
> They're concerned with providing benefits to people who
> use their list properly.
--
E-Mail Sent to this address <Blac...@Anitech-Systems.com>
will be added to the BlackLists.