Removal request
Rich
open relay. This relay has long been fixed.
@SPAM/spamsource: 216.19.221/24: 553 SPAM merchants...@juno.com
216.19.221.10 2003-05
Please update the listing and remove our ip's at your earliest convenience,
thank you.
--
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.
Richard Johnson
wrote:
> 216.19.22.10 is listed on openrbl.org for spam that was sent out through an
> open relay. This relay has long been fixed.
>
> @SPAM/spamsource: 216.19.221/24: 553 SPAM merchants...@juno.com
> 216.19.221.10 2003-05
>
> Please update the listing and remove our ip's at your earliest convenience,
> thank you.
Why are you broadcasting your request in the wrong forum, instead of
contacting openrbl directly about their @SPAM composite? You're
barking up the wrong tree here.
Then again, why do you care about an IP address being listed in that
one in the first place? Is anyone refusing your mail because of it?
You're probably requesting work for no effect.
Richard
--
To reply via email, make sure you don't enter the whirlpool on river left.
My mailbox. My property. My personal space. My rules. Deal with it.
http://www.river.com/users/share/cluetrain/
Moderator--WD Baseley
[intentional body snip]
I am a moderator of this newsgroup trying to get a message to the
original poster, "Rich". I cannot reply to you directly because you
chose to use a false address. That is a problem in two ways:
1) You will not see email responses from the moderators. This alone is
not reason enough to change your From: line, however;
2) More importantly, your address munge is unacceptable because it
resolves to a real domain, thereby causing the spam you seek to avoid to
be sent to someone else.
Please change your address munge. Suggestion: n...@spam.invalid
-wdb, in the role of moderator
Buss Error
news:m34431tgfospp29hp...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 20:11:31 GMT, "Rich" <n...@spam.com> stated:
>
> [intentional body snip]
>
> I am a moderator of this newsgroup trying to get a message to the
> original poster, "Rich". I cannot reply to you directly because you
> chose to use a false address. That is a problem in two ways:
>
> 1) You will not see email responses from the moderators. This alone is
> not reason enough to change your From: line, however;
>
> 2) More importantly, your address munge is unacceptable because it
> resolves to a real domain, thereby causing the spam you seek to avoid to
> be sent to someone else.
>
> Please change your address munge. Suggestion: n...@spam.invalid
>
> -wdb, in the role of moderator
>
Or the RFC specified address for this and other situations, @example.com
Robert Bonomi
Buss Error <buss_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Moderator--WD Baseley <wdb_mo...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>news:m34431tgfospp29hp...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 20:11:31 GMT, "Rich" <n...@spam.com> stated:
>>
>> [intentional body snip]
>>
>> I am a moderator of this newsgroup trying to get a message to the
>> original poster, "Rich". I cannot reply to you directly because you
>> chose to use a false address. That is a problem in two ways:
>>
>> 1) You will not see email responses from the moderators. This alone is
>> not reason enough to change your From: line, however;
>>
>> 2) More importantly, your address munge is unacceptable because it
>> resolves to a real domain, thereby causing the spam you seek to avoid to
>> be sent to someone else.
>>
>> Please change your address munge. Suggestion: n...@spam.invalid
>>
>> -wdb, in the role of moderator
>>
>
>Or the RFC specified address for this and other situations, @example.com
The *same* RFC that specifies 'example.com' _also_ specifies the '.invalid'
TLD, as well as 'example.net', and 'example.org'. All are *equally* "correct"
(I can't say 'valid' :) for a 'guaranteed non-existent' e-mail address.
Per the RFC, "example.com/net/org" is intended to be used for 'illustrative'
purposes. while '.invalid' is intended to be used where you wish to
_guarantee_ an "invalid" address. I would suggest that the original poster's
intent is more along the lines of the latter, than the former.
The moderator's "suggestion" was _precisely_ accurate and correct.
mav...@hotmail.com
have identified and rectified the problem on the server. The server
wasnt open relay, but may have had a site or two causing the mail
spamming from the server. We have currently taken the required action
from our end and request a removal of the servers IP from the
blocklist.
Dave Platt
>have identified and rectified the problem on the server. The server
>wasnt open relay, but may have had a site or two causing the mail
>spamming from the server. We have currently taken the required action
>from our end and request a removal of the servers IP from the
>blocklist.
I'm not SPEWS, and don't know who is, so I can't delist you.
I can tell you, though, from looking at the S415 list, that it does
*not* appear to me that your system is listed due to any specific
spamming problems on your own network (I assume that you are speaking
on behalf of NOC4Hosts?).
Rather: the whole range of 69.46.0.0 through 69.46.31.255 is listed
because it's assigned to your upstream HIVELOCITY, a company whom
SPEWS seems to feel is a long-time spammer or spam-supporter. In
cases such as this, the mysterious entities who run SPEWS seem to feel
that it is appropriate to list most of all of a spam-tolerant ISP's
network, even when this listing includes addresses leased out to
non-spamming customers.
To the best of my knowledge, the only thing which seems likely to
persuade SPEWS to de-list these addresses, is for all of the spammers
to be disconnected from the network in question.
There seems to be some indication in the listing that HiVelocity may
have been sold to a new, non-spamming owner. Most of the listings in
S415 are at a level of 2, which is generally interpreted as "Watch
this network, but block email from it only if you're extremely strict
or paranoid about such things." One has to go to an extra effort to
block on a level-2 listing.
If HiVelocity has in fact cleaned up its act, and if you can persuade
them to post to this newsgroup and explain the realities of their new
management and policies, somebody from SPEWS might see their posting
and decide that the time was right to downgrade the listings to level
0 (historical). Or, perhaps not. It's often difficult to guess
correctly what the SPEWS entities will do in any given case.
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Please delist 69.46.5.244 of our mail server from the blocklist. We
>have identified and rectified the problem on the server. The server
>wasnt open relay, but may have had a site or two causing the mail
>spamming from the server. We have currently taken the required action
>from our end and request a removal of the servers IP from the
>blocklist.
It would really help if you told us WHICH block list is causing
you the problem, and what your measures were. The only listing
I could find was a SPEWS listing, and only at level 2, at that.
You shouldn't be experiencing much blocking. It also looks like
SPEWS is decaying many of the listings, so you may get in the
clear in the near future... if the spammers don't start up again.
If your measures are too weak, there's little reason for SPEWS
to delist the block you are in.
Speaking of which, note that according to SPEWS, your server
is NOT listed. It's the network, or part of the network, that
your server resides in that is listed:
2, 69.46.0.0/19, Brian Farrow / hivelocity.net (ASN'd Cogent feed)
The problem is that your upstream was causing the trouble.
Hivelocity.net was apparently overly friendly with a spammer,
and that caused SPEWS to list wider and wider ranges of
Hivelocity's networks (as a preventative measure). As such,
there's usually not much you can ask for here, and really,
hivelocity.net representatives should make a case for their
networks instead. But given the decay, maybe SPEWS will just
let it go. No one here can say for sure, though, so don't
accept anything said here at face value.
ru
--
I am not SPEWS.
Morely Dotes
> Please delist 69.46.5.244 of our mail server from the blocklist.
>From whihc blocklist? There are quite literally thousands of them.
> We have identified and rectified the problem on the server.
And that problem was...?
> The server wasnt open relay, but may have had a site or two causing the
> mail spamming from the server.
What site(s) might that have been?
> We have currently taken the required action from our end
What action have you taken specifically?
> and request a removal of the servers IP from the blocklist.
Again, which list?
You have a credibility problem:
Two ROSKO listings for well-known career spammers:
ROK2540 Eddy Marin - Oneroute - Internet America LLC - NETAMERICA-BLK2 minions
ROK4588 Penn Media / Shagmail - 21stcenturycampaigns.com
[IPv4 whois information for 69.46.5.244 ]
[whois.arin.net]
HIVELOCITY VENTURES CORP NOCBLK-2 (NET-69-46-0-0-1)
69.46.0.0 - 69.46.31.255
NOC4Hosts NOC4HOSTS (NET-69-46-0-1-1)
69.46.0.1 - 69.46.10.254
OrgName: HIVELOCITY VENTURES CORP
OrgID: HVC-3
Address: 400 N Tampa St
Address: #1025
City: Tampa
StateProv: FL
PostalCode: 33602
Country: US
--
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
Who is Brad Jesness? http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/
To the spammers, my motto: FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC.
mav...@hotmail.com
have identified and rectified the problem on the server. The server
wasnt open relay, but may have had a site or two causing the mail
from our end and request a removal of the servers IP from the
blocklist.
--
McWebber
news:1110839404....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Please delist 69.46.5.244 of our mail server from the blocklist. We
> have identified and rectified the problem on the server. The server
> wasnt open relay, but may have had a site or two causing the mail
> spamming from the server. We have currently taken the required action
> from our end and request a removal of the servers IP from the
> blocklist.
>
Who are you asking? What sites were the problem?
--
McWebber
"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
that he's operating appropriately."
Information Week, November 10, 2003
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 01:57 AM, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) said:
>The moderator's "suggestion" was _precisely_ accurate and correct.
Forther, the replacement for RFC 1036 will be specifying .invalid
exclusively.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action. 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
Robert Bonomi
<mav...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Please delist 69.46.5.244 of our mail server from the blocklist. We
>have identified and rectified the problem on the server. The server
>wasnt open relay, but may have had a site or two causing the mail
>spamming from the server. We have currently taken the required action
>from our end and request a removal of the servers IP from the
>blocklist.
>
Beg pardon, but:
1) _who_ are you?
2) _what_ blocklist are you listed in?
3) _what_ is the identification for the record listing you?
4) _how_ are you related to the entity named in that record?
Answer _all_ those questions and somebody might be able to offer intelligent
conversation on the subject.
WITHOUT that information, we would just be wasting our time speculating.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
03/14/2005
at 11:05 PM, mav...@hotmail.com said:
>Please delist 69.46.5.244 of our mail server from the blocklist.
What blocklist? There are a lot of them.
>We have identified and rectified the problem on the server.
If you, rather than your provider, are listed, then I would expect the
list operator to want more detail as to what steps you took when. If
the problem is hivelocity then the ball is in their court and there's
nothing that you can do about the listing except put pressure on them.
>We have currently taken the required action
>from our end
Specifically?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
<http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action. 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
--