Request for S2777 Removal (ServePath)

n...@servepath.com

unread,

Mar 31, 2005, 9:22:54 PM3/31/05

to

ServePath would like to request the removal of our IP space
from SPEWS listing S2777, or at least a reduction in the
listing magnitude.

There are no spammers or Email marketers on our network. No
mass Email, whether allowed by US law or not, is coming from
our network, and no related web sites or DNS are being hosted.

This was achieved with some internal management changes, a
new tracking system for abuse complaints, and the enforcement
of a new Acceptable Use Policy:

http://www.servepath.com/about/aup.htm

Thank you for your patience.

ServePath Network Team

--
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.

David W. Hodgins

unread,

Mar 31, 2005, 9:50:39 PM3/31/05

to

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:22:54 -0500, n...@servepath.com <n...@servepath.com> wrote:

> http://www.servepath.com/about/aup.htm

From your aup...

"Do not send more than one hundred (100) unsolicited e-mails during
any twenty-four (24) hour period"

So it's ok to send 99 spam email's per account, per day?

You may want to consider changing the above to something along the
lines of "Do not send more than 100 e-mails during any twenty-four
hour period, without prior permission, otherwise it will be assumed
that the e-mails are spam."

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to rogers.com to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specfically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

Jeff Higgins

unread,

Mar 31, 2005, 10:01:38 PM3/31/05

to

>
>There are no spammers or Email marketers on our network. No
>mass Email, whether allowed by US law or not, is coming from
>our network, and no related web sites or DNS are being hosted.

Umm ... what about this one I got recently ...

lists.bcdnews.com/t/r.s?link_id=55&l=news 69.59.176.176

Jeff

huey.c...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 31, 2005, 10:56:35 PM3/31/05

to

David W. Hodgins <dhodg...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> n...@servepath.com <n...@servepath.com> wrote:
> > http://www.servepath.com/about/aup.htm
> From your aup...
> "Do not send more than one hundred (100) unsolicited e-mails during
> any twenty-four (24) hour period"
> So it's ok to send 99 spam email's per account, per day?

No, it doesn't say 'bulk', and not all unsolicited mail is spam.

I wonder what happened to my old friends. I google on their names, and
find email addresses that are likely to be them. I send them email. As
we lost touch prior to the _invention_ of email, there's no way I
possibly could have their permission to send them email. So, it's
unsolicited. I send a lot of unsolicited mail to these email addresses,
that looks something like this: "Hi: if you're the John Doe who lived
on Skylark in Chelsea, this is Huey, remember me from 30 years ago?".
The servepath AUP says I can't send more than 100 unsolicited mails in
a day. That's fair.

The part you snipped said this:
ServePath does not tolerate Spam or e-mail marketing of any kind,
whether legal or illegal. [...bit you quoted goes here...] Any message
sent to a recipient from a purchased, rented, licensed, or traded list
of e-mail addresses is automatically considered unsolicited. (Messages
forbidden by this paragraph are collectively referred to herein as
"E-mail Marketing".) (E-mail Marketing creates a risk that ServePath
will be blacklisted from other networks and so could adversely affect
other ServePath users.)

Do not violate the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Do not send E-Mail Marketing
Messages or facilitate E-Mail Marketing, even if such conduct is
CAN-SPAM compliant. Do not host or allow to be hosted any site or
information that is advertised by E-Mail Marketing, even if such
conduct is CAN-SPAM compliant.

If anything, that's too strict, as it appears to potentially ban
mailing lists of any kind. It also goes on to say:
ServePath reserves the right to disable service or terminate service
and/or to remove content in order to investigate suspected violations
of this AUP or of the Terms of Service without first giving notice.
The cost of any investigation will be charged to the Customer at $99
per hour, in addition to charges for attorneys. fees and related
expenses (if any). ServePath furthermore reserves the right to
disable Customer's service if ServePath suspects that such service
is the target of an attack or in any way interferes with services
provided to other customers, even if Customer is not at fault.
ServePath does not issue refunds for terminating service due to any
of the causes specified above.

....which says to me that I ~could~ lose service, be charged
money, or both for 1) bogus complaints, or 2) attacks on my site by
other people, which is ~way~ overkill if they actually use this clause.

> You may want to consider changing the above to something along the
> lines of "Do not send more than 100 e-mails during any twenty-four
> hour period, without prior permission, otherwise it will be assumed
> that the e-mails are spam."

I disagree. If anything, this AUP could stand to be less draconian.
There are more than enough tools there for them to keep their network
clean, if they enforce it.

--
Huey

Message has been deleted

Clemens W

unread,

Apr 1, 2005, 7:24:52 AM4/1/05

to

n...@servepath.com wrote:
> There are no spammers or Email marketers on our network. No
> mass Email, whether allowed by US law or not, is coming from
> our network, and no related web sites or DNS are being hosted.

Are you really sure about this? Could you then please explain why
Spamhaus still has four listings on servepath.com?

http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=servepath.com

Found 4 SBL listings for IPs under the responsibility of servepath.com

SBL25499
64.151.110.128/28 servepath.com
30-Mar-2005 23:25 GMT WEB-VALUEZ.COM / "mail topia"

SBL25012
64.151.100.32/27 servepath.com
18-Mar-2005 03:40 GMT homebiz-leads.com

SBL18020
64.151.87.0/25 servepath.com
17-Jul-2004 20:04 GMT express5000.net / ideal-opps.com

SBL15269
69.59.176.96/27 servepath.com
27-Mar-2004 18:08 GMT b2bpost.com, webvalpak.com et al.

Though this is a significant reduction from the last time I looked up
servepath.com on Spamhaus (17 listings on Mar/20), the number is not
nil.

You are on the right path, now continue your efforts until all spammers
are gone. Then SPEWS will probably also downgrade the S2777 listing.

> This was achieved with some internal management changes, a
> new tracking system for abuse complaints, and the enforcement
> of a new Acceptable Use Policy:

Keep up the good work.

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
--
"And lo, the LART did come down from the heavens trailing fire and
brimstone. Yea verily, the LART did implant itself in yon bozo's
forehead, its mighty blade cleaving his thick skull in twain and
exposing the empty spaces therein for all the world to gaze upon with
much mirth and frivolity" - Camille Klein

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Apr 1, 2005, 12:26:54 PM4/1/05

to

Scripsit Jeff Higgins:

> Umm ... what about this one I got recently ...
>
> lists.bcdnews.com/t/r.s?link_id=55&l=news 69.59.176.176

Looks pretty close to SBL15269, which dates back to March last year. Of
course, since servepath's rwhois is broken it's impossible to verify if
it's the same client.

$ telnet rwhois.servepath.com 4321
Trying 216.93.160.21...
telnet: connect to address 216.93.160.21: Connection refused
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host

--
MA

n...@servepath.com

unread,

Apr 5, 2005, 8:07:50 PM4/5/05

to

RWHOIS server is up again.

rwhois://rwhois.servepath.net:4321

Thanks

Marcus Aurelius

unread,

Apr 6, 2005, 6:40:18 AM4/6/05

to

Scripsit n...@servepath.com:

> RWHOIS server is up again.
>
> rwhois://rwhois.servepath.net:4321

Ack from here anyway:

$ telnet rwhois.servepath.com 4321
Trying 216.93.160.21...

Connected to rwhois.servepath.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
%rwhois V-1.5:002cb0:00 rwhois.servepath.com (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.7.3)
69.59.176.176
network:Auth-Area:69.59.128.0/18
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID:4638.69.59.176.176/28
network:Network-Name:4638-NETWORK
network:IP-Network:69.59.176.176/28
network:Org-Name:eCube Media Inc
network:Street-Address:PO BOX 997
network:City:New York
network:State:NY
network:Postal-Code:10156
network:Country-Code:United States
network:Tech-Contact;I:it...@ecubemedia.com
network:Updated:20040824
network:Updated-By:hostm...@servepath.com

%ok
Connection closed by foreign host.

--
MA

Rich Kulawiec

unread,

Apr 6, 2005, 2:13:38 PM4/6/05

to

On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 02:22:54AM +0000, n...@servepath.com wrote:
> There are no spammers or Email marketers on our network. No
> mass Email, whether allowed by US law or not, is coming from
> our network, and no related web sites or DNS are being hosted.

I don't believe that this is true. Below is a *partial* list of
those that are on my radar and on your network. Note that a number
of these are also mentioned in various SPEWS and SBL records.

With such luminaries as these, including "bulkemailmarketing.com",
on your network, it appears to me that you have considerable work
to before your claims (above) can be substantiated.

As I said: please note that this is a *partial* list. Merely taking
care of these domains will not be sufficient to remove all traces of
all spammers from your network.

---Rsk

n...@servepath.com

unread,

Apr 20, 2005, 8:11:22 PM4/20/05

to

These IPs are currently assigned to legitimate accounts and the SOA for
each of these domains is on non-ServePath IP space. I can't control A
records within zones that I don't administer.

If I had to guess, these are probably defunct domains abandoned by
spammers after we booted them. Most of the NS records points to DNS
hosts who are themselves on Spamhaus.

You pointed out "bulkemailmarketing.com" with MX record 69.59.168.108.
That IP is owned by a non-spammer and is used to host Email/HTTP for
atsearchengineoptimization.com (PTR matches, too). Check out our
RWHOIS server for more info.

That said, the only input sources I've got at this time to ascertain my
network's health in terms of keeping Abuse to a minimum are a)
complaints emails to ab...@servepath.com and b) the Spamhaus RBL (down
to 3 listings and will have zero very soon). This big list that you
provided is news to me and I'd like to know how you got it so I can get
to the source and clear it up.

Thank you

Paul

Gunter Herrmann

unread,

Apr 21, 2005, 7:54:22 AM4/21/05

to

Hi!

n...@servepath.com wrote:

> You pointed out "bulkemailmarketing.com" with MX record 69.59.168.108.

Just file a complaint at <http://wdprs.internic.net/>

HTH

--
Gunter Herrmann
Naples, Florida, USA

The Open Sourceror's Apprentice

unread,

Apr 21, 2005, 11:18:33 AM4/21/05

to

"n...@servepath.com" <n...@servepath.com> wrote in
news:1114043566.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> You pointed out "bulkemailmarketing.com" with MX record 69.59.168.108.
> That IP is owned by a non-spammer

Bullcrap.

http://bulkemailmarketing.com/ redirects to
http://www.quadrapromotions.com/optin_emails.html which advertises, in
part:

==============
Optin Email Advertising

- Over 3000 categories
- Over 30 million email addresses
- 100% opt-in email addresses. All subscribers have requested to receive
info on their interested subjects.
- No junk mail. We have a NO SPAM policy.
- We will take care of all the mailings and any merge/purge necessary.
*** SPECIAL ***

1 Million Names for $3000.00
Mailing Included

For more info or to order contact us via our feedback form or call:
1-877-737-3083

These email lists are collected on various high traffic websites such as
AltaVista, Internet.com and TheCounter.com.
==============

The page itself appears to be offering to sell email addresses, and appears
to be admitting to address harvesting (Which is a violation of US Federal
law, under CAN-SPAM).

Is this really the sort of customer ServePath wants? Oh, wait, it's
ServePath. Of course that's the kind of customer you want, judging by your
historical spam-support.

--
Email, Smarthosting, Web hosting for individuals and business:
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
"I ran the Malicious Software Removal Tool, and now Windows is gone!"

n...@servepath.com

unread,

Apr 21, 2005, 12:03:21 PM4/21/05

to

Can you forward me spam complaints from these IPs so that I can use
them as justification for firing this customer?

> and appears to be admitting to address harvesting

Where do you see that?

--Paul

Carl Byington

unread,

Apr 21, 2005, 1:09:24 PM4/21/05

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:11:22 +0000, n...@servepath.com wrote:

[snip]

> You pointed out "bulkemailmarketing.com" with MX record 69.59.168.108.
> That IP is owned by a non-spammer and is used to host Email/HTTP for
> atsearchengineoptimization.com (PTR matches, too). Check out our
> RWHOIS server for more info.

non-spammer? Really? Would you care to explain your theory as to how
*anyone* obtains "Over 30 million email addresses, 100% opt-in email
addresses".

http://www.bulkemailmarketing.com
http://www.quadrapromotions.com
http://www.opt-in-emails.com

Those folks may have opted-in to *something*, but they have surely not all
opted-in to any message that anyone with a bit of cash cares to send.

And I simply don't believe that those 30 million addresses were gathered
thru a closed-loop confirmation system.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCZysyL6j7milTFsERAhH5AJ9flMTyo/fdowjjo35aX7iNg8Cw7gCcCQXC
KvKpPFwnSnTVlw8V7FVFnEM=
=bj9r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The Open Sourceror's Apprentice

unread,

Apr 21, 2005, 3:19:21 PM4/21/05

to

"n...@servepath.com" <n...@servepath.com> wrote in
news:1114102609.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Can you forward me spam complaints from these IPs so that I can use
> them as justification for firing this customer?
>
>> and appears to be admitting to address harvesting
>
> Where do you see that?

"These email lists are collected on various high traffic websites such as
AltaVista, Internet.com and TheCounter.com. "

--
Email, Smarthosting, Web hosting for individuals and business:
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
"I ran the Malicious Software Removal Tool, and now Windows is gone!"

--

chris greville

unread,

Apr 21, 2005, 4:52:37 PM4/21/05

to

<n...@servepath.com> wrote in message
news:1114102609.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> Can you forward me spam complaints from these IPs so that I can use
> them as justification for firing this customer?
>
>> and appears to be admitting to address harvesting
>
> Where do you see that?
>

In the remark which your rose tinted glasses did not see.

"These email lists are */*collected*/* on various high traffic websites such

as
AltaVista, Internet.com and TheCounter.com. "

HTH, HAND

Chris Greville

Seth Breidbart

unread,

Apr 21, 2005, 4:47:07 PM4/21/05

to

In article <1114102609.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,

n...@servepath.com <n...@servepath.com> wrote:
>Can you forward me spam complaints from these IPs so that I can use
>them as justification for firing this customer?
>
>> and appears to be admitting to address harvesting
>
>Where do you see that?

} These email lists are collected on various high traffic websites such

} as AltaVista, Internet.com and TheCounter.com.

Unless you believe that 30 MILLION people have opted in to their
email, in which case I'd advise you not to go outside during the rain
and look up (or perhaps I'd be better off advising you to look up the
next time you're outside in the rain).

Seth

n...@servepath.com

unread,

Apr 21, 2005, 6:59:46 PM4/21/05

to

We will be taking immediate action against these guys.

Thanks

Bubba

unread,

Apr 22, 2005, 12:24:26 AM4/22/05

to

In article <1114122218.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
n...@servepath.com says...

> We will be taking immediate action against these guys.
>
> Thanks
>

Servepath has been dicking around with S2777 for over a year. How much
longer do you think you will need before you stop promising to clean
your network and actually get rid of your spammers?

Remember this post from On 6 Oct 2003?

Anti-Abuse/UCE
Team) wrote:
>Hello,

>If you are out there, please lift the block on 69.59.128.0/19 and
>216.93.160.0/19. Many of the domains in the listing have been removed
>from our network. We are in the process of removing all of the
>spammers from our network.

>Yes, many of the IP address do ping. We recycle addresses and some of
>the domains that were associated with those IP addresses have not been
>updated (we do not control that).

>Thank you
>ServePath Anti-Abuse/UCE Team

Perusion Hostmaster

unread,

Apr 22, 2005, 12:22:56 AM4/22/05

to

On 2005-04-21, n...@servepath.com <n...@servepath.com> wrote:
> These IPs are currently assigned to legitimate accounts and the SOA for
> each of these domains is on non-ServePath IP space. I can't control A
> records within zones that I don't administer.

But I presume you can control the server itself. It is serving
pages for spammers.

>
> If I had to guess, these are probably defunct domains abandoned by
> spammers after we booted them. Most of the NS records points to DNS
> hosts who are themselves on Spamhaus.

Nope. You have spammers live and running on 69.59.168.108 and
69.59.168.111 at least. It should be on the SBL too (hint, hint). There
is definite spammer sign like 3 domains with variations in
name on the same web page (www.opt-inemails.com, www.optin-
emails.com, and www.opt-in-emails.com). That same address also
advertises bulkemailmarketing.com.

>
> You pointed out "bulkemailmarketing.com" with MX record 69.59.168.108.
> That IP is owned by a non-spammer and is used to host Email/HTTP for
> atsearchengineoptimization.com (PTR matches, too). Check out our
> RWHOIS server for more info.

Can't. It doesn't respond.

>
> That said, the only input sources I've got at this time to ascertain my
> network's health in terms of keeping Abuse to a minimum are a)
> complaints emails to ab...@servepath.com and b) the Spamhaus RBL (down
> to 3 listings and will have zero very soon).

I think it will have more again very shortly, based on your history
and the fact that you are not (unwittingly or no) telling the truth
about there not being spammers on 69.59.168.108.

> This big list that you provided is news to me and I'd like to know how
> you got it so I can get to the source and clear it up.

You want to listwash him, is that it?

--

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison

phil-new...@ipal.net

unread,

Apr 22, 2005, 10:19:15 AM4/22/05

to

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:59:46 GMT n...@servepath.com <n...@servepath.com> wrote:

| We will be taking immediate action against these guys.

"will" == future

What is your definition of "immediate"?

Does anyone there know how to shutdown a router interface in IOS?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

n...@servepath.com

unread,

Apr 28, 2005, 7:54:05 PM4/28/05

to

> Can't. It doesn't respond.

Yes, it does. Please try again:

rwhois://rwhois.servepath.com:4321

> I think it will have more again very shortly, based on your history
> and the fact that you are not (unwittingly or no) telling the truth
> about there not being spammers on 69.59.168.108.

We're down to 2 Spamhaus listings. We'll have zero very soon.

> Nope. You have spammers live and running on 69.59.168.108 and
> 69.59.168.111 at least. It should be on the SBL too (hint, hint).
There
> is definite spammer sign like 3 domains with variations in
> name on the same web page (www.opt-inemails.com, www.optin-
> emails.com, and www.opt-in-emails.com).

This customer just came on my radar because I've not received any
complaints about their IP space.

Notwithstanding your approval of this account's domain names, as a
carrier we do not police the web content of our thousands of servers,
but can only respond to complaints against our posted AUP, IP
infringements, etc. We don't otherwise censor content like some
non-democratic nations do.

Again, please let me know if you receive spam complaints on these IPs,
or if you receive spam emails whose payload points to any web servers
hosted on these IPs.

Thank you

McWebber

unread,

Apr 28, 2005, 10:27:22 PM4/28/05

to

<n...@servepath.com> wrote in message
news:1114727926....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> Notwithstanding your approval of this account's domain names, as a
> carrier we do not police the web content of our thousands of servers,
> but can only respond to complaints against our posted AUP, IP
> infringements, etc. We don't otherwise censor content like some
> non-democratic nations do.

Newsflash: Servepath.com is not a nation or a government agency.
Servepath.com can do whatever it wants with regards to content of their
servers. It is not censorship when it is not the government doing it.

>
> Again, please let me know if you receive spam complaints on these IPs,
> or if you receive spam emails whose payload points to any web servers
> hosted on these IPs.

Do you now what the EW in SPEWS stands for?

--
McWebber
"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
that he's operating appropriately."
Information Week, November 10, 2003

Morely Dotes

unread,

Apr 28, 2005, 10:11:22 PM4/28/05

to

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:54:05 +0000, n...@servepath.com wrote:

>> name on the same web page (www.opt-inemails.com, www.optin-
>> emails.com, and www.opt-in-emails.com).
>

> Notwithstanding your approval of this account's domain names, as a
> carrier we do not police the web content of our thousands of servers,
> but can only respond to complaints against our posted AUP, IP
> infringements, etc. We don't otherwise censor content like some
> non-democratic nations do.

So tell us more about Frea Speach, why don't you?

Some of us have personal experience with those "non-democratic nations"
and we don;'t see a lot of difference in the behavior of bullies with
guns, and the behavior of bullies with large IP allocations.

Your network has a long history of knowing and willing spam support. You
would be best served by simply ignoring any perceived insults, unless of
course your aim is to get 216.93.160.0/19 permanently welded into
thousands *more* block-and-forget ACLs.

But, hey, it's your business. You do as you see fit.

--
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.

n...@servepath.com

unread,

Apr 29, 2005, 11:37:34 AM4/29/05

to

> Servepath has been dicking around with S2777 for over a year. How
much
> longer do you think you will need before you stop promising to clean
> your network and actually get rid of your spammers?

> Remember this post from On 6 Oct 2003?

No, I don't remember that post. Before my time. The person that wrote
that doesn't work for ServePath any longer.

Robert Briggs

unread,

Apr 29, 2005, 5:27:48 PM4/29/05

to

n...@servepath.com wrote:
>
> > Servepath has been dicking around with S2777 for over a year. How
> > much longer do you think you will need before you stop promising
> > to clean your network and actually get rid of your spammers?
>
> > Remember this post from On 6 Oct 2003?
>
> No, I don't remember that post. Before my time. The person that
> wrote that doesn't work for ServePath any longer.

Hmm ... it's *just* possible that if you, as the new boy, can stamp
very hard and very quickly on *all* the roaches in your space SPEWS
will notice and lift blocks a *little* more quickly than they would
otherwise do.

I ain't SPEWS, so I can't speak for them - but you can hardly be any
*worse* off by acting swiftly and decisively.

Perusion Hostmaster

unread,

Apr 29, 2005, 6:58:06 PM4/29/05

to

On 2005-04-28, n...@servepath.com <n...@servepath.com> wrote:
>> Can't. It doesn't respond.
>
> Yes, it does. Please try again:
>
> rwhois://rwhois.servepath.com:4321

It certainly didn't at the time I posted.

>
>> I think it will have more again very shortly, based on your history
>> and the fact that you are not (unwittingly or no) telling the truth
>> about there not being spammers on 69.59.168.108.
>
> We're down to 2 Spamhaus listings. We'll have zero very soon.

So you say. If they get wind of the below, hosting spamware
services, you will have more.

>> Nope. You have spammers live and running on 69.59.168.108 and
>> 69.59.168.111 at least. It should be on the SBL too (hint, hint).
> There
>> is definite spammer sign like 3 domains with variations in
>> name on the same web page (www.opt-inemails.com, www.optin-
>> emails.com, and www.opt-in-emails.com).
>
> This customer just came on my radar because I've not received any
> complaints about their IP space.
>
> Notwithstanding your approval of this account's domain names, as a
> carrier we do not police the web content of our thousands of servers,
> but can only respond to complaints against our posted AUP, IP
> infringements, etc. We don't otherwise censor content like some
> non-democratic nations do.

You can do what you want. And SPEWS and the SBL will do what they
want, which is to list addresses that have spamware advertised. You
are almost certain to remain listed at SPEWS as long as you have
spammers as customers.

>
> Again, please let me know if you receive spam complaints on these IPs,
> or if you receive spam emails whose payload points to any web servers
> hosted on these IPs.

I always have complained. I haven't often got a satisfactory response
from Servepath, though.

--

There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney

Seth Breidbart

unread,

Apr 30, 2005, 12:35:51 AM4/30/05

to

In article <RcqdnUYJxNT...@comcast.com>,

McWebber <mcwe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
><n...@servepath.com> wrote in message
>news:1114727926....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Notwithstanding your approval of this account's domain names, as a
>> carrier we do not police the web content of our thousands of servers,
>> but can only respond to complaints against our posted AUP, IP
>> infringements, etc. We don't otherwise censor content like some
>> non-democratic nations do.
>
>Newsflash: Servepath.com is not a nation or a government agency.
>Servepath.com can do whatever it wants with regards to content of their
>servers. It is not censorship when it is not the government doing it.

So are you suggesting they should terminate customers because the
domain names _look_ spammy, or have multiple domains with similar
names?

$ whois micr0soft.com
Registrant:
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US

I know the net would be better off without them, but still . . .

>> Again, please let me know if you receive spam complaints on these IPs,
>> or if you receive spam emails whose payload points to any web servers
>> hosted on these IPs.
>
>Do you now what the EW in SPEWS stands for?

If you have an actual reason to believe that spam related to that
customer's netspace is likely, please present it.

Meanwhile, if they get rid of every current Spamhaus listing, avoid
new ones, and terminate customers when valid complaints are received,
I'll believe they're doing a good job.

Seth

Morely Dotes

unread,

Apr 30, 2005, 11:10:36 AM4/30/05

to

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 04:35:51 +0000, Seth Breidbart wrote:

> So are you suggesting they should terminate customers because the
> domain names _look_ spammy, or have multiple domains with similar
> names?

I believe the implication is that Servepath should check out the sites
and make a determination based on their findings.

> $ whois micr0soft.com
> Registrant:
> Microsoft Corporation
> 1 Microsoft Way
> Redmond, WA 98052
> US
>
> I know the net would be better off without them, but still . . .

Since the current flood of zombie spam is *entirely* the fault of
Microsoft, that's not a bad idea. How soon can you implement it? ;-)

--
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.

--

Richard Johnson

unread,

Apr 30, 2005, 2:26:12 PM4/30/05

to

In article <1114792385.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"n...@servepath.com" <n...@servepath.com> wrote:

> > Servepath has been dicking around with S2777 for over a year. How
> much
> > longer do you think you will need before you stop promising to clean
> > your network and actually get rid of your spammers?
>
> > Remember this post from On 6 Oct 2003?
>
> No, I don't remember that post. Before my time. The person that wrote
> that doesn't work for ServePath any longer.

And you expect us to believe that your cleanup will be any more
effective or last any longer than those hinted at, hollowly, by past
servepath PR teams?

I suggest you actually clean up, rather than wasting your time posting
on usenet now. Get your results first, then talk about it. Since
no-one from servepath has any credibility left, that's your only
option short of going out of business.

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/

McWebber

unread,

May 2, 2005, 8:33:34 PM5/2/05

to

"Seth Breidbart" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d4uaqc$rjj$1...@reader1.panix.com...

> In article <RcqdnUYJxNT...@comcast.com>,
> McWebber <mcwe...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> ><n...@servepath.com> wrote in message
> >news:1114727926....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Notwithstanding your approval of this account's domain names, as a
> >> carrier we do not police the web content of our thousands of servers,
> >> but can only respond to complaints against our posted AUP, IP
> >> infringements, etc. We don't otherwise censor content like some
> >> non-democratic nations do.
> >
> >Newsflash: Servepath.com is not a nation or a government agency.
> >Servepath.com can do whatever it wants with regards to content of their
> >servers. It is not censorship when it is not the government doing it.
>
> So are you suggesting they should terminate customers because the
> domain names _look_ spammy, or have multiple domains with similar
> names?

No. I did not say that. Read the thread.
In this case, which is all I'm discussing, the customer, apparently a known
spammer, has the domains www.opt-inemails.com, www.optin-emails.com, and
www.opt-in-emails.com

Servepath is claiming that using that as evidence to terminate is
censorship. Servepath is not the government therefore it is not censorship.

> >Do you now what the EW in SPEWS stands for?
>
> If you have an actual reason to believe that spam related to that
> customer's netspace is likely, please present it.

I thought Perusion Hostmaster was claiming that. I was not making that
claim. However, I don't consider just spam being related to that netspace
would be the only issue:

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=Xns963F5AAD62E20MorelyDotesspamblock%40216.99.211.247

"1 Million Names for $3000.00
Mailing Included"

>

> Meanwhile, if they get rid of every current Spamhaus listing, avoid
> new ones, and terminate customers when valid complaints are received,
> I'll believe they're doing a good job.

If I win the lottery I'll believe I'm a millionare. If Scott Richter donated
a million dollars to Habitat for Humanity I might change my opinion about
him. Lots of "ifs" to ponder.

--
McWebber
"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
that he's operating appropriately."
Information Week, November 10, 2003

Michael Sheldon

unread,

May 3, 2005, 7:53:55 AM5/3/05

to

On 5/2/2005 17:33, McWebber wrote:
> Servepath is claiming that using that as evidence to terminate is
> censorship. Servepath is not the government therefore it is not censorship.

Actually, it *is* still censorship, it's just not censorship prohibited
by the US constitution.

The definition of censorship has nothing to do with whether the
censoring party is the government.

--
Michael J Sheldon
http://www.desertraven.net/

McWebber

unread,

May 3, 2005, 11:31:21 AM5/3/05

to

"Michael Sheldon" <ne...@desertraven.com> wrote in message
news:ekDde.3029$Fa1.2841@fed1read02...

> On 5/2/2005 17:33, McWebber wrote:
> > Servepath is claiming that using that as evidence to terminate is
> > censorship. Servepath is not the government therefore it is not
censorship.
>
> Actually, it *is* still censorship, it's just not censorship prohibited
> by the US constitution.
>
> The definition of censorship has nothing to do with whether the
> censoring party is the government.
>

It is still not censorship to use the domain name as a logical reason to
cancel an account. If an ISP got a complaint about a site with the URL
www.iwillblowupgovernmentbuildings.com it would not be censorship to cancel
that account. They would be idiots not to based on just about any ISP's AUP.
A site involved in spamware with "optin" in the domain is about as clear a
sign of spam as the above URL is of potential violence.

--
McWebber
"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
that he's operating appropriately."
Information Week, November 10, 2003

The Open Sourceror's Apprentice

unread,

May 3, 2005, 11:47:42 AM5/3/05

to

Michael Sheldon <ne...@desertraven.com> wrote in news:ekDde.3029$Fa1.2841
@fed1read02:

> The definition of censorship has nothing to do with whether the
> censoring party is the government.

It's also irrelevant to spam control. "Censorship" in this context is
perfectly acceptable; any private business has the right (and, indeed, on the
Internet, the obligation) to refuse to do business with those who would harm
others through the use of that business relationship (other than normal
capitalistic competition, under which umbrella spam does *NOT* fall).

The sale of bulk email addresses or bulk email services without confirmed
opt-in constitutes knowing, willing, and deliberate harm, and should be
grounds for immediate termination of the relationship, and any and all
servcies provided by the ISP.

--
Email, Smarthosting, Web hosting for individuals and business:
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
"I ran the Malicious Software Removal Tool, and now Windows is gone!"

--

Seth Breidbart

unread,

May 3, 2005, 7:12:39 PM5/3/05

to

In article <fJOdnWyztps...@comcast.com>,
McWebber <mcwe...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>It is still not censorship to use the domain name as a logical reason to
>cancel an account.

It can be, but so what?

> If an ISP got a complaint about a site with the URL
>www.iwillblowupgovernmentbuildings.com it would not be censorship to cancel
>that account.

If it were cancelled because the ISP doesn't like the domain name,
then it's censorship of the domain name. But again, so what?

> They would be idiots not to based on just about any ISP's AUP.

Who has an AUP prohibiting stupid domain names?

>A site involved in spamware with "optin" in the domain is about as clear a
>sign of spam as the above URL is of potential violence.

It's the involvement in spamware that counts.

Seth

n...@servepath.com

unread,

May 4, 2005, 6:50:11 PM5/4/05

to

I'm happy to report that ServePath has reached zero Spamhaus listings
and we intend to stay at this level.

http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=servepath.com

Paul

Hal Murray

unread,

May 4, 2005, 9:45:47 PM5/4/05

to

>I'm happy to report that ServePath has reached zero Spamhaus listings
>and we intend to stay at this level.

Thanks.

Always nice to have more people/sites with the right hat color.

Any hints on how to get management to see the light?

--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California. So are all my
other mailboxes. Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

David W. Hodgins

unread,

May 4, 2005, 10:27:18 PM5/4/05

to

On Wed, 04 May 2005 18:50:11 -0400, n...@servepath.com <n...@servepath.com> wrote:

> I'm happy to report that ServePath has reached zero Spamhaus listings
> and we intend to stay at this level.

What about the entries in S2777 (excluding the apparent escalations
against servePath itself)?

Looks like you still have
anonymouslyours.com
aaa-webhost.net aka freehostingweb.com

Regards, Dave Hodgins

|--------------------
1, 216.93.166.0/24, ServePath (anonymouslyours.com)
$ wget anonymouslyours.com
--22:31:02-- http://anonymouslyours.com/
=> `index.html'
Resolving anonymouslyours.com... 64.151.79.116
Connecting to anonymouslyours.com[64.151.79.116]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://www.anonymouslyours.com/ [following]
--22:31:02-- http://www.anonymouslyours.com/
=> `index.html'
Resolving www.anonymouslyours.com... 64.151.79.116
Connecting to www.anonymouslyours.com[64.151.79.116]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 456,283 [text/html]

100%[=================================================================================================>] 456,283 360.55K/s

22:31:04 (359.57 KB/s) - `index.html' saved [456,283/456,283]

[dave@hodgins tmp]$ cat index.html|more
<!DOCTYPE html public "-//w3c//dtd html 3.2//en">
<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;CHARSET=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="keywords" content="franchise, home based business opportunity, website traffic">
<meta name="description" content="own a turnkey franchise website that includes four of the hottest millionaire maker produces and services o
n the internet">
<meta name="classification" content="franchise">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Visual Page 2.0 for Windows">
<title>franchise opportunity, website traffic , turnkey home based franchise website income opportunity</title>

1, 216.93.178.0/24, ServePath (bulkemailusa.com)
bulkemailusa.com is now on 64.69.68.141 (peer1) and redirects
to www2.linkz.com (also on peer1)

1, 216.93.179.0/24, ServePath (dns1.yourpublicdns.biz)
$ host dns1.yourpublicdns.biz
dns1.yourpublicdns.biz has address 216.93.179.228
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached

1, 216.93.175.0/24, ServePath (hostey.com)
hostey.com appears to be dead

1, 69.59.147.0/24, ServePath (llonline.net / ns1.contlnet.com / ns1.sroad8.com)
Host llonline.net not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
Host ns1.contlnet.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
Host ns1.sroad8.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)

1, 69.59.142.0/24, ServePath (aaa-webhost.net/corsairdns.com)
Still up and running on
aaa-webhost.net has address 69.59.142.104
Registrant:
Cristina Reyes (AAA-WEBHOST-NET-DOM)
2053 N.W. 79 AVE
Miami, Fl 33122
USA
011-506-352-3107
***@aaa-webhost.net
Record last updated on 31-Mar-2005.
Record expires on 21-May-2005.
Record created on 21-May-2003.
Domain servers in listed order:
Name Server: ns1.corsairdns.com
Name Server: ns2.corsairdns.com
Could this be the same spammer as freehostinweb.com, which is
on 69.59.142.72? Yes.
wget freehostingweb.com
--22:59:37-- http://freehostingweb.com/
=> `index.html'
Resolving freehostingweb.com... 69.59.142.72
Connecting to freehostingweb.com[69.59.142.72]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 22,566 [text/html]
100%[=================================================================================================>] 22,566 61.38K/s
22:59:38 (61.26 KB/s) - `index.html' saved [22,566/22,566]
[dave@hodgins tmp]$ cat index.html|more
<html>
snip...
<a href="mailto:email:wel...@aaa-webhost.net">email: 
</a><a href="mailto:email:wel...@aaa-webhost.net">
wel...@aaa-webhost.net</a></td>
See thread http://groups-beta.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/browse_frm/thread/7d4a99603fbf9226/15acd6b077ae84b3?q=%2269.59.142%22+group:news.admin.net-abuse.*&rnum=1#15acd6b077ae84b3

1, 157.22.32.0/20, ServePath (zocalo.net)
zocalo.net appears dead

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to rogers.com to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

Bill Carton - (The Roadie)

unread,

May 6, 2005, 2:56:28 PM5/6/05

to

"n...@servepath.com" <n...@servepath.com> wrote:

>I'm happy to report that ServePath has reached zero Spamhaus listings
>and we intend to stay at this level.
>
>http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=servepath.com

Fresh in, but I have every confidence you'll get right on it:

SBL26695
216.93.174.72/29 servepath.com
05-May-2005 19:30 GMT John Lemp / IntegraClick / theviralspiral / Quickie
Marketin
--
Bill "the Roadie" Carton

McWebber

unread,

May 6, 2005, 6:03:20 PM5/6/05

to

"Bill Carton - (The Roadie)" <wca...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:rqin71l078qp8tpop...@4ax.com...

> "n...@servepath.com" <n...@servepath.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm happy to report that ServePath has reached zero Spamhaus listings
> >and we intend to stay at this level.
> >
> >http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=servepath.com
>
> Fresh in, but I have every confidence you'll get right on it:
>
> SBL26695
> 216.93.174.72/29 servepath.com
> 05-May-2005 19:30 GMT John Lemp / IntegraClick / theviralspiral / Quickie
> Marketin

Let's not forget to lart GoDaddy on qmkt.com

--
McWebber
"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
that he's operating appropriately."
Information Week, November 10, 2003

n...@servepath.com

unread,

May 6, 2005, 7:25:37 PM5/6/05

to

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

This customer is disabled and all DNS traces, RWHOIS entries are
removed.

The listing should be gone within 24 hours.

Paul

Seth Breidbart

unread,

May 8, 2005, 8:57:32 AM5/8/05

to

In article <pan.2005.04.30...@spamblocked.com>,

Morely Dotes <morel...@spamblocked.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 04:35:51 +0000, Seth Breidbart wrote:
>
>> So are you suggesting they should terminate customers because the
>> domain names _look_ spammy, or have multiple domains with similar
>> names?
>
>I believe the implication is that Servepath should check out the sites
>and make a determination based on their findings.

That's fine; but I don't think they have an obligation to do so
pre-emptively.

>> $ whois micr0soft.com
>> Registrant:
>> Microsoft Corporation
>> 1 Microsoft Way
>> Redmond, WA 98052
>> US
>>
>> I know the net would be better off without them, but still . . .
>
>Since the current flood of zombie spam is *entirely* the fault of
>Microsoft, that's not a bad idea. How soon can you implement it? ;-)

They'd still sell CDs with insecure software, so that wouldn't help
(and would arguably do harm, preventing them from distributing the few
security improvements they are capable of and willing to distribute).

Seth

Seth Breidbart

unread,

May 9, 2005, 7:38:11 PM5/9/05

to

In article <rqin71l078qp8tpop...@4ax.com>,

Bill Carton - (The Roadie) <wca...@flash.net> wrote:
>"n...@servepath.com" <n...@servepath.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm happy to report that ServePath has reached zero Spamhaus listings
>>and we intend to stay at this level.
>>
>>http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.lasso?isp=servepath.com
>
>Fresh in, but I have every confidence you'll get right on it:
>
>SBL26695

Yes, it's finally cleared. I guess they don't work weekends.

Seth