PING: abuse@plusnet?
Al Bowlly
spamming from plusnet), does anyone have a full list of Plusnets's IP
ranges so we can set them to drop in the firewall?
I've reported the spamming issue to the Police (re: Protection from
Harassment Act) and hopefully under the joint enterprise rules I'll be
able to take some action against Plusnet.
--
Midnight, the stars and you.........
Adrian C
> As the abuse at plusnet goes ignored (broa...@mastermixdj.com ongoing
> spamming from plusnet), does anyone have a full list of Plusnets's IP
> ranges so we can set them to drop in the firewall?
Sensible request...
> I've reported the spamming issue to the Police (re: Protection from
> Harassment Act) and hopefully under the joint enterprise rules I'll be
> able to take some action against Plusnet.
Or Trolling Nonsense...
--
Adrian C
Peter Crosland
news:va8nh5poqov1kvpsu...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:49:35 +0000 (UTC), Al Bowlly <nu...@invalid.local>
> wrote this:
>
>>I've reported the spamming issue to the Police (re: Protection from
>>Harassment Act) and hopefully under the joint enterprise rules I'll be
>>able to take some action against Plusnet.
>
He may be. In the first instance he should make a formal written complaint
to the ISP.
Peter Crosland
Chris Hills
> As the abuse at plusnet goes ignored (broa...@mastermixdj.com ongoing
> spamming from plusnet), does anyone have a full list of Plusnets's IP
> ranges so we can set them to drop in the firewall?
If they have kept their details up to date you can look through the file
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ripe.db.inetnum.gz which lists
subnets allocated in the RIPE region (Europe).
Al Bowlly
and blew....
Very much for real. Plusnet and their customer have already had two
written warnings, one from a solicitor - along with an apology from them
it would not happen again.
I noted that Bob Pullen from Plusnet was seen to post here and wanted to
know why their abuse box is ignored beyond the backscattering auto-
responder?
Al Bowlly
blew....
> Or Trolling Nonsense...
Don't judge other people by your own tardy, abusive poor standards fool.
Adrian C
>
> Very much for real. Plusnet and their customer have already had two
> written warnings, one from a solicitor - along with an apology from them
> it would not happen again.
You would rather pay the services of a _solicitor_ than change your
email address, ISP, or use decent mail handling software?
--
Adrian C
Al Bowlly
blew....
> Al Bowlly wrote:
1. Yes
2. It's an offence to send UBE in the UK to a private individual - I
should have no need to change an email address where a professional ISP
and UK limited company are concerned
3. I already do - it's the principle.
Your point is that you don't understand abuse principles or are you just
apply for the job of group idiot? Your hired.
Andy Burns
> Your hired.
Are these yours? ' e
I think you dropped them.
Adrian C
He looks a wee bit on edge there.
I'd give him a wide berth, last thing ye need is him going 'falling
down' on us ...
--
Adrian C
Andy Burns
> Just found a quicker way (using rwhois from ripe):
>
> whois -i org ORG-PTL1-RIPE | grep ^inet
That misses out my plusnet-allocated subnet.
Chris Hills
> That misses out my plusnet-allocated subnet.
Oops, that was the wrong data. The correct data should be:-
inetnum: 212.56.64.0 - 212.56.127.255
inetnum: 195.166.128.0 - 195.166.159.255
inetnum: 212.159.0.0 - 212.159.127.255
inetnum: 80.189.0.0 - 80.189.255.255
inetnum: 213.162.96.0 - 213.162.127.255
inetnum: 81.174.128.0 - 81.174.255.255
inetnum: 80.229.0.0 - 80.229.255.255
inetnum: 83.216.128.0 - 83.216.159.255
inetnum: 84.92.0.0 - 84.93.255.255
inetnum: 84.51.128.0 - 84.51.191.255
inetnum: 87.112.0.0 - 87.115.255.255
inetnum: 91.125.0.0 - 91.125.255.255
Thanks for pointing that out!
Andy Burns
> On 06/12/09 18:20, Andy Burns wrote:
>> That misses out my plusnet-allocated subnet.
>
> Oops, that was the wrong data.
Yep, that catches me, guess I won't be able to email Mr Bowlly :-P
Al Bowlly
blew....
> On 06/12/09 17:33, Chris Hills wrote:
Don't worry, during WWII the Germans blow me up anyway....
Al Bowlly
blew....
> On 06/12/09 15:54, Chris Hills wrote:
>> If they have kept their details up to date you can look through the
>> file ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ripe.db.inetnum.gz which lists
>> subnets allocated in the RIPE region (Europe).
>
> Just found a quicker way (using rwhois from ripe):
>
> whois -i org ORG-PTL1-RIPE | grep ^inet
>
That is very useful Chris - the database and greping of the whois. You
learn something new everyday ;-)
George Weston
"Al Bowlly" <nu...@invalid.local> wrote in message
news:hfgn0u$tlm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
You mentioned Plusnet and "their customer" - which one?
I seem to recall a similar rant in here a few months back from someone with
another name, who would not name the particular Plusnet customer, even when
pressed. Surely it wasn't you, was it? If it was, why change your name to
that of a 1930s crooner - and why raise the subject yet again in this NG?
A solicitor's letter, as you probably well know already, is a device used by
people with a real or imagined grievance, for the purpose of frightening
someone with whom you disagree, in the perhaps forlorn hope that they will
stop doing what you accuse them of doing. Such letters have no force in law
and you could write one yourself if you had a reasonable command of the
English language - and save money in fees to boot. If you have sufficient
evidence to sue the other party and feel strongly enough about your
grievance, then why not sue them and have done with it? (You may of course
lose your case).
You then go on to verbally abuse those who respond to your post, thus losing
any sympathy you might have had in the first place - one of the true marks
of a troll.
I will now sit back and await a reasonable response to this post or -
probably more likely - further abuse directed at me. If the latter should
apply, plonkage will surely ensue.
George
R Gower
"Al Bowlly" <nu...@invalid.local> wrote in message
the mail is ditched before it even gets to your mailbox. I would love to
know
which firewall you have that will allow whole IP blocks to be stopped on
various protocols.
R Gower
"Al Bowlly" <nu...@invalid.local> wrote in message
You wonder why people spam you? A solicitor can not issue a warning of
any kind, but will take your money and send a letter. The police will not
take your complaint any further as you can take steps to prevent what you
claim is happening very easily. Your reasons for not doing so and for the
apparent attention seeking and having a go at the ISP are only known to
you.
No one in this group is interested and you need to be reminded that if you
have started legal action and involved the Police - you are now breaking
the Law by discussing a case before it has gone to Court or been
investigated
fully.
Bob Eager
> The police will laugh at you. Get a program such as MAILWASHER, then
> the mail is ditched before it even gets to your mailbox.
Set the firewall and it won't even get that far. Much less hassle.
> I would love to know which firewall you have that will allow whole IP
> blocks to be stopped on various protocols.
Any proper firewall.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Al Bowlly
and blew....
> "Al Bowlly" <nu...@invalid.local> wrote in message
> news:hfgn0u$tlm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:29:41 +0000, Adrian C struck up his trumpet and
>> blew....
>>
>>> Al Bowlly wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Very much for real. Plusnet and their customer have already had two
>>>> written warnings, one from a solicitor - along with an apology from
>>>> them it would not happen again.
>>>
>>> You would rather pay the services of a _solicitor_ than change your
>>> email address, ISP, or use decent mail handling software?
>>
>> 1. Yes
>> 2. It's an offence to send UBE in the UK to a private individual - I
>> should have no need to change an email address where a professional ISP
>> and UK limited company are concerned
>> 3. I already do - it's the principle.
>>
>> Your point is that you don't understand abuse principles or are you
>> just apply for the job of group idiot? Your hired.
>
> You mentioned Plusnet and "their customer" - which one? I seem to recall
> a similar rant in here a few months back from someone with another name,
> who would not name the particular Plusnet customer, even when pressed.
I'm happy to name them George - it's 'Mastermix' in Rotherham.
> Surely it wasn't you, was it? If it was, why change your name to that of
> a 1930s crooner - and why raise the subject yet again in this NG?
I noted that Bob Pullen dropped in here and may be able to get me some
joy as to why the abuse box is ignored beyond a backscatter type auto
response. As for a sock change, morph notice was posted - but if you have
an overactive killfile (we will cover that) you may have missed it.
> solicitor's letter, as you probably well know already, is a device used
> by people with a real or imagined grievance, for the purpose of
> frightening someone with whom you disagree, in the perhaps forlorn hope
> that they will stop doing what you accuse them of doing. Such letters
> have no force in law and you could write one yourself if you had a
> reasonable command of the English language - and save money in fees to
> boot.
Indeed, they are expensive pieces of paper, but when the next step is to
charge the ISP/Customer an hourly rate for 'dealing' with the intrusion,
the district recorder likes to see some form of reasonable attempt to
resolve the issue prior to action. Also, money is no object, it's about
getting bad ISP's to clean up their acts.
If you have sufficient evidence to sue the other party and feel
> strongly enough about your grievance, then why not sue them and have
> done with it? (You may of course lose your case).
This is what I will be doing - this is just a step to fully engage the
ISP and make every reasonable attempt to contact them. Bob Pullen of
Plusnet reads this group and posts here.
> You then go on to verbally abuse those who respond to your post, thus
> losing any sympathy you might have had in the first place - one of the
> true marks of a troll.
It is entirely fair to respond to abusive trolling answers in the spirit
in which they are made.
> I will now sit back and await a reasonable response to this post or -
> probably more likely - further abuse directed at me. If the latter
> should apply, plonkage will surely ensue.
That tired of 'plonkage' threat is really a sign of a weak mind, and
appears in people who want to push their opinion across but can't cope
with being engaged with an answer. Looking through the archives I can see
that tends to describe you so go ahead and plonk all you like, I'm not
seeing anything useful in your posting at all.
R Gower Wrote
> The police will laugh at you.
Actually, no they won't and no they don't (having done this on 5
occasions in the last two years). You may have be under a rock for a few
years if you think any form of harassing or abusive message is permitted
in UK law. It is not. The act of sending an inappropriate text, Facebook,
twitter.....(through to email)... message is dealt with swiftly by the
Police if you take the time to report it. It's great statistically for
them, so they are usually happy to deal. Go ahead and try it, you'll be
somewhat surprised.
This will be the fifth company in the UK I've needed to take this action
against for harassing me with 'spam'. In the first instance it usually
only results in the company being asked to sign an agreement not to
harass again, a repeat usually means a fixed penalty notice (I've managed
to get both of these) and the next stage is Mag's under the
Telecommunications or Protection from Harassment Acts. Whilst this may
seem like relatively pointless action with limited return, it usually
stops the problem in it's tracks and ends up recorded on the PNC. So if
the spammer is an individual it comes back to haunt if an enhanced CRB
check is required at any stage. It probably won't bode too well to see
recorded incidents of harassment.
As for the firewall that will block by range Mr Eager points out 'any
proper firewall' and is correct. It's trivial to do it with IPTables.
However, why should I punish *all* Plusnet customers because *one* of
their customers is commiting an offence? They should have a working abuse
policy that deals with repeat offenders of this nature. They appear to
choose not to do this, probably for fiscal reasons, so it is necessary to
take the required action and hopefully make is commercial unattractive to
continue providing service for the abusing customer.
With regards to Mailwasher and other toy anti-spam software, anything
operating on POP/IMAP has to partially or fully pull all the bytes from
that spam into the local network to make a decision. It's a small waste
of my paid for bandwidth, but a waste none the less. As we move more to
mobile devices where a few kb's X lots has a more noticeable cost
implication. It is, however, the kind of answer you get from people who
don't really have much of a clue regarding UBE/UCE - but given your
knowledge on firewalls 'R Gower', I'll forgive you and accept that you
are not at the same technical level as me or George.
CRUX:
Bob Pullen, please can you tell me why your abuse@ seems to have no
effect on ongoing spammers who have already been warned once to stop? Are
you prepared to take action or do I need to?
Al Bowlly
blew....
CORRECTION
> I'll forgive you and accept that you
> are not at the same technical level as me or George.
>
Should read:
are not at the same technical level as me or Bob. George is at a similar
level to you.
To state it in simply terms; yes I can put a lock on my door, I can put a
grill on the window. These steps do not mean that burglary is no longer
illegal and should be tolerated.
Plusnet Support Team
Al Bowlly wrote:
> As the abuse at plusnet goes ignored (broa...@mastermixdj.com ongoing
> spamming from plusnet), does anyone have a full list of Plusnets's IP
> ranges so we can set them to drop in the firewall?
Am I to assume that you now have this information? Is the mail in
question being sent via our relay servers or directly from the
customer's IP addy? If it's our relay servers then the IPs you're after
are as follows:
212.159.14.145
212.159.14.146
212.159.14.147
212.159.14.17
212.159.14.18
212.159.14.19
212.159.14.148
212.159.14.20
Our abuse mailbox is not ignored however you won't receive a dedicated
response which is mentioned in the autoresponder IIRC? If you can
provide me with the time and date the email was sent to us then I can
track it down and make sure that some action was taken?
Whilst we may be listed as technical contact for the domain, I notice
that it isn't actually hosted with us.
Domain servers in listed order:
EARTH.THEPLANET.NET 195.92.195.222
VENUS.THEPLANET.NET 194.152.65.222
PLUTO.THEPLANET.NET 195.92.67.32
> I've reported the spamming issue to the Police (re: Protection from
> Harassment Act) and hopefully under the joint enterprise rules I'll be
> able to take some action against Plusnet.
--
|Bob Pullen Broadband Solutions for
|Support Home & Business @
|Plusnet Plc. www.plus.net
+--------------- twitter.com/plusnet ----------------
Al Bowlly
trumpet and blew....
>
> Our abuse mailbox is not ignored however you won't receive a dedicated
> response which is mentioned in the autoresponder IIRC? If you can
> provide me with the time and date the email was sent to us then I can
> track it down and make sure that some action was taken?
>
Received: from relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net (relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net
[212.159.7.36])
by ... (stinger2) with ESMTP id 6326DAD10E
for <...>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:44:40 +0000 (GMT)
Andy Burns
> Received: from relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net (relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net
> [212.159.7.36])
> by ... (stinger2) with ESMTP id 6326DAD10E
> for<...>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:44:40 +0000 (GMT)
Bloody hell, an hour and five minutes after sending the email on a
Sunday, you've decided no action is being taken, reported it to he
police and moaned about it on usenet?
Al Bowlly
blew....
> On 07/12/09 14:16, Al Bowlly wrote:
Your point being?
Al Bowlly
blew....
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:24:55 +0000, Andy Burns struck up his trumpet and
> blew....
>
>> On 07/12/09 14:16, Al Bowlly wrote:
>>
>>> Received: from relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net (relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net
>>> [212.159.7.36])
>>> by ... (stinger2) with ESMTP id 6326DAD10E for<...>; Sun, 6
>>> Dec 2009 10:44:40 +0000 (GMT)
>>
>> Bloody hell, an hour and five minutes after sending the email on a
>> Sunday, you've decided no action is being taken, reported it to he
>> police and moaned about it on usenet?
>
> Your point being?
Actually that is unfair - you may not be aware of the history. It was an
ongoing daily attack of spam from the same Plusnet customer. Earlier in
the year there were written letters of apologies from all concerned and a
promise the email address had been removed from all databases. It then
restarted last week and after giving Plusnet 72 hours to resolve it, it
was ongoing - hence what appears to you to be a very snappy response, is
many months old.
Can I help you with anything else or are you done?
Andy Burns
> Your point being?
>
> Actually that is unfair - you may not be aware of the history.
I might be, if I knew what name(s) you used to post under ...
Peter Crosland
Perhaps he wonders why you don't use an effective solution like Mailwasher.
Probably a lot more effective and much less effort than blaming all and
sundry.
Peter Crosland
Al Bowlly
and blew....
> "Al Bowlly" <nu...@invalid.local> wrote in message
> news:hfj3jb$o77$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:24:55 +0000, Andy Burns struck up his trumpet
>> and blew....
>>
>>> On 07/12/09 14:16, Al Bowlly wrote:
>>>
>>>> Received: from relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net (relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net
>>>> [212.159.7.36])
>>>> by ... (stinger2) with ESMTP id 6326DAD10E for<...>; Sun, 6
>>>> Dec 2009 10:44:40 +0000 (GMT)
>>>
>>> Bloody hell, an hour and five minutes after sending the email on a
>>> Sunday, you've decided no action is being taken, reported it to he
>>> police and moaned about it on usenet?
>>
>> Your point being?
>
>
> Perhaps he wonders why you don't use an effective solution like
> Mailwasher. Probably a lot more effective and much less effort than
> blaming all and sundry.
>
> Peter Crosland
Is there a part of 'Just because I have a lock on my door, it does not
mean burglary is ok' that you don't get?
Do you also *not* get that a toy like Mailwasher still needs to read the
trash in to a point (thus wasting your bandwidth) before it says 'hey,
this is spam - I better delete it'.
Please rest assured that I have extensive, at the gateway spam killing
going on, but this moronis of a company keeps firing it into a trap which
is, by nature, deliberately open.
I'll give Bob Pullen a chance to sort this out - he's usually right on
the money - but other than that, the trivial side diversions of toy
software are really unnecessary. I *can* easily block it, I just should
not need to OK ;-)
Peter Crosland
--
Peter Crosland
"Al Bowlly" <nu...@invalid.local> wrote in message
news:hfja88$n77$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
A more apposite analogy would be that if you know that your door is
vulnerable then it is wise to take extra security measure rather than rely
on the police to do so. Not blocking the problem, when you claim you can,
is sheer bloody mindedness.
Peter Crosland
Al Bowlly
and blew....
If you fixed your newsclient, I may have been able to read that, but the
gist of it I can just about make out the greyed out text.
You've missed the point. This is more like a burglar that has already
been arrested once, let of with a caution then going on to re offend.
Your view of my 'bloddy mindedness' is similar to my view of your
spinelessness. But thank you for you valuable opinion and contribution.
George Weston
"Al Bowlly" <nu...@invalid.local> wrote in message
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:42:54 +0000, George Weston struck up his trumpet
> and blew....
>
>> "Al Bowlly" <nu...@invalid.local> wrote in message
>> news:hfgn0u$tlm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:29:41 +0000, Adrian C struck up his trumpet and
>>> blew....
>>>
>>>> Al Bowlly wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Very much for real. Plusnet and their customer have already had two
>>>>> written warnings, one from a solicitor - along with an apology from
>>>>> them it would not happen again.
>>>>
>>>> You would rather pay the services of a _solicitor_ than change your
>>>> email address, ISP, or use decent mail handling software?
>>>
>>> 1. Yes
>>> 2. It's an offence to send UBE in the UK to a private individual - I
>>> should have no need to change an email address where a professional ISP
>>> and UK limited company are concerned
>>> 3. I already do - it's the principle.
>>>
>>> Your point is that you don't understand abuse principles or are you
>>> just apply for the job of group idiot? Your hired.
>>
>> You mentioned Plusnet and "their customer" - which one? I seem to recall
>> a similar rant in here a few months back from someone with another name,
>> who would not name the particular Plusnet customer, even when pressed.
>
> I'm happy to name them George - it's 'Mastermix' in Rotherham.
Thanks. Are they just spamming you with sales emails (like many companies
will) or is it more than just spam - i.e. personal to you?
(Don't answer that, of course if this might prejudice your case or even if
you don't want to.)
If the answers were indeed "abusive trolling answers", I might agree with
you. However, the example quoted abovve from Adrain C didn't strike me as
abusive or trolling but he got one from you definitely with your reference
to "group idiot".
>
>> I will now sit back and await a reasonable response to this post or -
>> probably more likely - further abuse directed at me. If the latter
>> should apply, plonkage will surely ensue.
>
> That tired of 'plonkage' threat is really a sign of a weak mind, and
> appears in people who want to push their opinion across but can't cope
> with being engaged with an answer. Looking through the archives I can see
> that tends to describe you so go ahead and plonk all you like, I'm not
> seeing anything useful in your posting at all.
You have now explained at some length about some details of your issue with
Plusnet and their customer (although see Bob Pullen's latest reply about
Mastermix's hosting company, which may or may not complicate that issue). At
least, we, the great unwashed contributors to this newsgroup of all
technical abilities are now able to understand a little more than was ofered
to us with your first few posts. I have no pre-conceived and unalterable
opinions, contrary to your assumption, I was merely trying to poin out - as
much to others as to you - some information about solicitors' letters and
their efficacy that I have gleaned from personal experience, both personally
and professionally. Now you have explained a little more, I do not intend to
plonk you, and will follow this thread with interest, if my weak mind will
allow this.
Plusnet Support Team
Ah, of course. The relay servers send through our IronPort platform. The
IP's in which case are:
212.159.7.35
212.159.7.36
212.159.7.99
212.159.7.100
It's worth bearing in mind that the guys who monitor the abuse mailbox
do not work over the weekend.
I'll see if I can hunt down the mail you sent to us and get somebody to
make contact with the end user...
Al Bowlly
trombone and blew....
> Al Bowlly wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:34:21 +0000, Plusnet Support Team struck up his
>> trumpet and blew....
>>
>>> Our abuse mailbox is not ignored however you won't receive a dedicated
>>> response which is mentioned in the autoresponder IIRC? If you can
>>> provide me with the time and date the email was sent to us then I can
>>> track it down and make sure that some action was taken?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Received: from relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net (relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net
>> [212.159.7.36])
>> by ... (stinger2) with ESMTP id 6326DAD10E for <...>; Sun, 6
>> Dec 2009 10:44:40 +0000 (GMT)
>
> Ah, of course. The relay servers send through our IronPort platform. The
> IP's in which case are:
>
> 212.159.7.35
> 212.159.7.36
> 212.159.7.99
> 212.159.7.100
>
> It's worth bearing in mind that the guys who monitor the abuse mailbox
> do not work over the weekend.
>
> I'll see if I can hunt down the mail you sent to us and get somebody to
> make contact with the end user...
Thanks Bob, much appreciated.
--
Midnight, the stars a n d you.........
Plusnet Support Team
I've had someone trawl the abuse mailbox but they're not finding your mails.
Can you send the information through again and then reply to this thread
with the date stamp of the sent message (your message to us, not the
offending customer's)?
Al Bowlly
trombone and blew....
Here you go, the last two unanswered abuse reports, complete with message
ID's from your inbound gateway - that should have you sort it out in
minutes?
Dec 6 11:47:14 . postfix/smtp[12191]: 06EB5AC0C2: to=<ab...@plus.net>,
relay=mx-ironport.core.plus.net[84.92.2.97]:25, delay=9.8,
delays=0.84/0.01/8.5/0.48, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 ok: Message
219968861 accepted)
Dec 1 18:17:15 . postfix/smtp[2887]: 70996AC119: to=<ab...@plus.net>,
relay=mx-ironport.core.plus.net[84.92.2.65]:25, delay=1.8,
delays=0.56/0.03/0.61/0.57, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 ok: Message
241272537 accepted)
You may want to suggest that somebody actually *deals* with what goes
into that abuse@ - it's there for a reason, and that is not just to
satisfy the RFC's.
Thanks for this, it's nice of Plusnet to care....
Thank you for taking your time to report this incident to our Security
Master. This is an automatically generated email message to inform you
of the receipt of your report and to give you more information about
how it will be processed.
Incidents are dealt with in the order that they are received and if we
are inundated with unique reports, then it may take up to 1 week for
your report to be dealt with. Due to the high number of reports we
receive it is not possible to provide feedback regarding the outcome for
every report. Additionally, if 7 or more people have reported the
incident (not including any auto generated reports), it is unlikely that
you will receive an email stating the action that was taken. The sort of
incident where this would happen is, for example, public abuse in a
USENET group. Any incident that is held in a public forum is unlikely to
yield an email back to every complainant due to the number of reports of
these incidents.
However, this does not mean that your report has been ignored, and it
certainly shouldn't deter you from making future incident reports,
because it is only with the cooperation of our users that we can
effectively deal with those who would abuse our service.
If you feel that the incident you are reporting warrants involvement
of an appropriate law enforcement body then you must report the incident
yourself. We will then cooperate fully with them as is appropriate
under United Kingdom law.
When making a report please ensure that you include the following
information:
1) Date and time of the incident (including time zone).
2) Source IP or domain (including full email or news headers).
3) Any logs that substantiate the report.
4) Full posting (if an email or USENET group abuse posting, including
the headers).
5) Anything else you feel would help (including details of any previous
incidents).
Once again, thank you for sending us your abuse report. Please note that
this email address is for abuse issues only; if your email is of any
other nature your enquiry cannot be dealt with and you should contact us
on 0845 140 0200.
Our Security Package (available on the portal website) is already
protecting
many of our customers from this threat in their email. You can find out
more
by visiting the "Services" link in the Member Centre of our website.
Regards,
PlusNet Security Master.
http://www.plus.net/
PlusNet - The Smarter Way to Internet
Al Bowlly
blew....
Any news Bob?
Plusnet Support Team
Unfortunately not I'm afraid, I've been on leave since Tuesday however
I'll try and chase this up for you when I'm back in the office next week...
Al Bowlly
trombone and blew....
>> Any news Bob?
>
> Unfortunately not I'm afraid, I've been on leave since Tuesday however
> I'll try and chase this up for you when I'm back in the office next
> week...
It's still happening Bob:
Dec 13 12:22:41 . inbound/cleanup[24940]: 6AE69AD10E: reject: header
From: "Mastermix" <broa...@mastermixdj.com> from relay.ptn-
ipout01.plus.net[212.159.7.35]; from=<broa...@mastermixdj.com> to=<.>
proto=ESMTP helo=<relay.ptn-ipout01.plus.net>: 5.7.1 KNOWN UK SPAMMER
MASTER MIX
Dec 10 17:50:09 . inbound/smtpd[28922]: NOQUEUE: reject_warning: RCPT
from relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net[212.159.7.100]: 554 5.7.1 Service
unavailable; Client host [212.159.7.100] blocked using
spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net; Spam Received See: http://www.sorbs.net/
lookup.shtml?212.159.7.100; from=<broa...@mastermixdj.com> to=<...>
proto=ESMTP helo=<relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net>
Can I take it you and the Plusnet abuse machine are not going to do
anything about this?
I note that you were listed with SORBS the other day - so clear you are
kicking out spam. I'm also aware to get delisted that quickly usually
requires a donation to SORBS.
There is an ongoing issue with broa...@mastermixdj.com, can you give an
ETA on when you will be fixing it?
Al Bowlly
blew....
And it still keeps on....
Received: from relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net (relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net
[212.159.7.36]) by ... (.) with ESMTP id C1579AD10E
for <>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:29:58 +0000 (GMT)
How much longer?????
Plusnet Support Team
Sorry about the delay. I've just chased this up with the abuse team. I'm
pretty sure I know which account the mails are coming from however I
need confirmation before I start pointing the finger or taking any
intrusive action.
I've provided them with the message IDs from the two abuse reports you
sent however when they first checked last week they couldn't find your
emails.
Al Bowlly
trombone and blew....
And for the benefit of your customers Bob, do your 'abuse' team intend to
get delisted from SORBS & Barracuda so some kind of 50/50 mail service
can be restored to them?
Plusnet Support Team
> can be restored to them?
I've checked the four outbound relays and only one of them seems to be
listed in spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net
212.159.7.35
212.159.7.36
212.159.7.99
212.159.7.100 *
Checking robtex.com I can't see any mention of any of the above being
listed by Barracuda?
No, we won't be giving SORBS any money to remove us from their database.
If we are on any other lists then yes, we will make a proactive effort
to request removal.
Al Bowlly
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:09:05 +0000, Plusnet Support Team struck up his
trombone and blew....
> 212.159.7.35
> 212.159.7.36
> 212.159.7.99
> 212.159.7.100 *
>
> Checking robtex.com I can't see any mention of any of the above being
> listed by Barracuda?
>
> No, we won't be giving SORBS any money to remove us from their database.
> If we are on any other lists then yes, we will make a proactive effort
> to request removal.
So you'll stay listed then? Sloppy abuse@ at has got plusnet here. SORBS
don't list non-spammers Bob. They don't just pick a range at random. You
would have had to emit shit loads of spam to get listed. I hope SORBS
leave you listed personally. My own experience is months and months of
ongoing spam an net abuse from a couple of your customers. I admit this
is predominantly Mastermix with their expensive leased line. In the
current economic climate I can understand the spineless lack of will to
deal with them but bear in mind the problem is your *other* paying
customers ***are*** suffering because of them, and others like them you
are shielding.
Regarding the dnsbl listings. You have been removed from Barracuda by the
look of it - but yesterday I'm sure 100(?) was listed. If so i'm sure it
will pop on and off before getting locked on for good. Your other IP's
are also partially listed with other blocklists.
The simple fix is not about removal after the fact, but not to get listed
in the first place and deal with your spammy customers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RUNNING CHECKS FOR 212.159.7.35
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==========================
CHECKING DNSBL BLACK LISTS
==========================
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: zen.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: sbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: pbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: xbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: cbl.abuseat.org
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: b.barracudacentral.org
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: dnsbl.njabl.org
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: dnsbl.sorbs.net
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: aspews.ext.sorbs.net
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: l1.apews.org
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: l2.apews.org
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: bl.spamcop.net
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: bl.spamcannibal.org
212.159.7.35 UNLISTED: no-more-funn.moensted.dk
212.159.7.35 BLACKLISTED: ips.backscatterer.org
212.159.7.35 BLACKLISTED: hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
==========================
CHECKING DNSBL WHITE LISTS
==========================
212.159.7.35 NOT WHITELISTED: sa-other.bondedsender.org
212.159.7.35 NOT WHITELISTED: plus.bondedsender.org
212.159.7.35 NOT WHITELISTED: sa-accredit.habeas.com
212.159.7.35 NOT WHITELISTED: ips.whitelisted.org
212.159.7.35 NOT WHITELISTED: resl.emailreg.org
===================
CHECKING PTR RECORD
===================
PTR OK: relay.ptn-ipout01.plus.net
RESOLVES TO 212.159.7.35
MATCHES 212.159.7.35
PTR DOMAIN: plus.net
============================
CHECKING URI/URL WHITE LISTS
============================
plus.net UNLISTED: multi.uribl.com
plus.net UNLISTED: multi.surbl.org
plus.net UNLISTED: dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
plus.net UNLISTED: resl.emailreg.org
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RUNNING CHECKS FOR 212.159.7.36
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==========================
CHECKING DNSBL BLACK LISTS
==========================
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: zen.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: sbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: pbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: xbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: cbl.abuseat.org
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: b.barracudacentral.org
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: dnsbl.njabl.org
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: dnsbl.sorbs.net
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: aspews.ext.sorbs.net
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: l1.apews.org
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: l2.apews.org
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: bl.spamcop.net
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: bl.spamcannibal.org
212.159.7.36 UNLISTED: no-more-funn.moensted.dk
212.159.7.36 BLACKLISTED: ips.backscatterer.org
212.159.7.36 BLACKLISTED: hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
==========================
CHECKING DNSBL WHITE LISTS
==========================
212.159.7.36 NOT WHITELISTED: sa-other.bondedsender.org
212.159.7.36 NOT WHITELISTED: plus.bondedsender.org
212.159.7.36 NOT WHITELISTED: sa-accredit.habeas.com
212.159.7.36 NOT WHITELISTED: ips.whitelisted.org
212.159.7.36 NOT WHITELISTED: resl.emailreg.org
===================
CHECKING PTR RECORD
===================
PTR OK: relay.ptn-ipout02.plus.net
RESOLVES TO 212.159.7.36
MATCHES 212.159.7.36
PTR DOMAIN: plus.net
============================
CHECKING URI/URL WHITE LISTS
============================
plus.net UNLISTED: multi.uribl.com
plus.net UNLISTED: multi.surbl.org
plus.net UNLISTED: dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
plus.net UNLISTED: resl.emailreg.org
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RUNNING CHECKS FOR 212.159.7.99
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==========================
CHECKING DNSBL BLACK LISTS
==========================
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: zen.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: sbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: pbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: xbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: cbl.abuseat.org
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: b.barracudacentral.org
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: dnsbl.njabl.org
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: dnsbl.sorbs.net
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: aspews.ext.sorbs.net
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: l1.apews.org
212.159.7.99 BLACKLISTED: l2.apews.org
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: bl.spamcop.net
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: bl.spamcannibal.org
212.159.7.99 UNLISTED: no-more-funn.moensted.dk
212.159.7.99 BLACKLISTED: ips.backscatterer.org
212.159.7.99 BLACKLISTED: hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
==========================
CHECKING DNSBL WHITE LISTS
==========================
212.159.7.99 NOT WHITELISTED: sa-other.bondedsender.org
212.159.7.99 NOT WHITELISTED: plus.bondedsender.org
212.159.7.99 NOT WHITELISTED: sa-accredit.habeas.com
212.159.7.99 NOT WHITELISTED: ips.whitelisted.org
212.159.7.99 NOT WHITELISTED: resl.emailreg.org
===================
CHECKING PTR RECORD
===================
PTR OK: relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net
RESOLVES TO 212.159.7.99
MATCHES 212.159.7.99
PTR DOMAIN: plus.net
============================
CHECKING URI/URL WHITE LISTS
============================
plus.net UNLISTED: multi.uribl.com
plus.net UNLISTED: multi.surbl.org
plus.net UNLISTED: dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
plus.net UNLISTED: resl.emailreg.org
.........................................................................
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RUNNING CHECKS FOR 212.159.7.100
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==========================
CHECKING DNSBL BLACK LISTS
==========================
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: zen.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: sbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: pbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: xbl.spamhaus.org
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: cbl.abuseat.org
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: b.barracudacentral.org
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: dnsbl.njabl.org
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: dnsbl-1.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: dnsbl-2.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: dnsbl-3.uceprotect.net
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: dnsbl.sorbs.net
212.159.7.100 BLACKLISTED: spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: aspews.ext.sorbs.net
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: l1.apews.org
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: l2.apews.org
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: bl.spamcop.net
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: bl.spamcannibal.org
212.159.7.100 UNLISTED: no-more-funn.moensted.dk
212.159.7.100 BLACKLISTED: ips.backscatterer.org
212.159.7.100 BLACKLISTED: hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
==========================
CHECKING DNSBL WHITE LISTS
==========================
212.159.7.100 NOT WHITELISTED: sa-other.bondedsender.org
212.159.7.100 NOT WHITELISTED: plus.bondedsender.org
212.159.7.100 NOT WHITELISTED: sa-accredit.habeas.com
212.159.7.100 NOT WHITELISTED: ips.whitelisted.org
212.159.7.100 NOT WHITELISTED: resl.emailreg.org
===================
CHECKING PTR RECORD
===================
PTR OK: relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net
RESOLVES TO 212.159.7.100
MATCHES 212.159.7.100
PTR DOMAIN: plus.net
============================
CHECKING URI/URL WHITE LISTS
============================
plus.net UNLISTED: multi.uribl.com
plus.net UNLISTED: multi.surbl.org
plus.net UNLISTED: dsn.rfc-ignorant.org
plus.net UNLISTED: resl.emailreg.org
......................................................................
Plusnet Support Team
On 16/12/2009 11:07, Al Bowlly wrote:
> Crossposting into NANAE FA OF SORBS
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:09:05 +0000, Plusnet Support Team struck up his
> trombone and blew....
>
>
>> 212.159.7.35
>> 212.159.7.36
>> 212.159.7.99
>> 212.159.7.100 *
>>
>> Checking robtex.com I can't see any mention of any of the above being
>> listed by Barracuda?
>>
>> No, we won't be giving SORBS any money to remove us from their database.
>> If we are on any other lists then yes, we will make a proactive effort
>> to request removal.
>
> So you'll stay listed then?
I doubt it. We've certainly not stayed listed in the past. The practice
of asking for money before SORBS will remove us from their lists is a
little questionable don't you think?
Sloppy abuse@ at has got plusnet here. SORBS
> don't list non-spammers Bob. They don't just pick a range at random. You
> would have had to emit shit loads of spam to get listed. I hope SORBS
> leave you listed personally. My own experience is months and months of
> ongoing spam an net abuse from a couple of your customers. I admit this
> is predominantly Mastermix with their expensive leased line.
I'm fully aware how SORBS operate. BTW, now I've read your abuse reports
I'm assuming you've tried following the usual channels for unsubscribing
to these mails? There appears to be instructions for doing so in the
footer of the messages. Am I correct in assuming this doesn't get you
anywhere?
In the
> current economic climate I can understand the spineless lack of will to
> deal with them but bear in mind the problem is your *other* paying
> customers ***are*** suffering because of them, and others like them you
> are shielding.
Economics has nothing to do with it and any such suggestion is quite
frankly silly. Like I mentioned in another thread, it would cost us far
more in support overheads to deal with complaints from customers whose
email is bouncing than the financial gain from a single leased line.
> Regarding the dnsbl listings. You have been removed from Barracuda by the
> look of it - but yesterday I'm sure 100(?) was listed. If so i'm sure it
> will pop on and off before getting locked on for good. Your other IP's
> are also partially listed with other blocklists.
l2.apews.org is an automated list and AFAIK they don't honour removal
requests.
ips.backscatterer.org doesn't concern me.
hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com I'm not too sure about, none of our four
relays are listed when performing a lookup here -
http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/remove.php
All of our abuse complaints are dealt with manually. This is the only
way to do things without having draconian outbound spam
filtering/restrictions in place. Unfortunately because of this, our
relays *will* occasionally end up on RBL's.
--
Al Bowlly
trombone and blew....
>>>
>>> No, we won't be giving SORBS any money to remove us from their
>>> database. If we are on any other lists then yes, we will make a
>>> proactive effort to request removal.
>>
>> So you'll stay listed then?
>
> I doubt it. We've certainly not stayed listed in the past. The practice
> of asking for money before SORBS will remove us from their lists is a
> little questionable don't you think?
No. For one thing it's a donation. For another are there any services
Plusnet provide for free? I didn't think so.
>
> Sloppy abuse@ at has got plusnet here. SORBS
>> don't list non-spammers Bob. They don't just pick a range at random.
>> You would have had to emit shit loads of spam to get listed. I hope
>> SORBS leave you listed personally. My own experience is months and
>> months of ongoing spam an net abuse from a couple of your customers. I
>> admit this is predominantly Mastermix with their expensive leased line.
>
> I'm fully aware how SORBS operate. BTW, now I've read your abuse reports
> I'm assuming you've tried following the usual channels for unsubscribing
> to these mails? There appears to be instructions for doing so in the
> footer of the messages. Am I correct in assuming this doesn't get you
> anywhere?
You are not aware of the letters from earlier in the year between me,
Mastermix and Plusnet promising this would never happen again? I think
that was a fairly safe 'unsubscribe' but yes. At the last count 2,700
requests in the last week.
>
> In the
>> current economic climate I can understand the spineless lack of will to
>> deal with them but bear in mind the problem is your *other* paying
>> customers ***are*** suffering because of them, and others like them you
>> are shielding.
>
> Economics has nothing to do with it and any such suggestion is quite
> frankly silly. Like I mentioned in another thread, it would cost us far
> more in support overheads to deal with complaints from customers whose
> email is bouncing than the financial gain from a single leased line.
Let's hope those words don't bite you on the backside.
>
>> Regarding the dnsbl listings. You have been removed from Barracuda by
>> the look of it - but yesterday I'm sure 100(?) was listed. If so i'm
>> sure it will pop on and off before getting locked on for good. Your
>> other IP's are also partially listed with other blocklists.
>
> l2.apews.org is an automated list and AFAIK they don't honour removal
> requests.
Agreed
> ips.backscatterer.org doesn't concern me.
Oh dear. See that complacency slipping in....
hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
> I'm not too sure about, none of our four relays are listed when
> performing a lookup here - http://ipadmin.junkemailfilter.com/remove.php
Ah, must be true then :-) Perhaps a realtime DNS check either against
your own servers {or googles if you are not using spamhaus zones}: They
*all* return 127 results == listed.
>>> 212.159.7.35
>>> 212.159.7.36
>>> 212.159.7.99
>>> 212.159.7.100 *
dig @8.8.8.8 +short 35.7.159.212.hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
dig @8.8.8.8 +short 36.7.159.212.hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
dig @8.8.8.8 +short 99.7.159.212.hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
dig @8.8.8.8 +short 100.7.159.212.hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
dig @8.8.8.8 +short 35.7.159.212.hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
127.0.1.1
dig @8.8.8.8 +short 35.7.159.212.hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
127.0.1.1
dig @8.8.8.8 +short 36.7.159.212.hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
127.0.1.1
dig @8.8.8.8 +short 99.7.159.212.hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
127.0.0.5
127.0.1.1
dig @8.8.8.8 +short 100.7.159.212.hostkarma.junkemailfilter.com
127.0.1.1
It's not 'occasionally' spamming though, is it Bob? It's a bit too often
with the same playas. If you *don't* deal with your net abusers {this is
the same spammer, repeat offence for months and months and months} do you
have any incline as to what this will do to your reputation long term?
Clue: Considered retraining? There are lots of middle aged ex-helpdesk
staff out there at the local soup kitchens with little hope of ever
working again. Don't join them.
Al Bowlly
blew....
Just following this up with SORBS response on the Plusnet 'we are not
paying to get delisted for our spam' line:
>>>> No, we won't be giving SORBS any money to remove us from their
>>>> database. If we are on any other lists then yes, we will make a
>>>> proactive effort to request removal.
>>>
SORBS WROTE;
> They can't read either then...
>
> SORBS does not get paid to remove by anyone. People make a donation to
> charity and send the charity sends the receipt to us. If they wish to
> send to a non charity it must be an organisation or cause on our
> approved list, currently the only one on that list of good causes is the
> Joey McNicol Legal Defense Fund.
>
> So many people love spreading the FUD that SORBS accepts payment for
> delisting... when the complete opposite is true.
>
> Michelle
jimguthrie
>SORBS WROTE;
>> They can't read either then...
>>
>> SORBS does not get paid to remove by anyone. People make a donation to
>> charity and send the charity sends the receipt to us. If they wish to
>> send to a non charity it must be an organisation or cause on our
>> approved list, currently the only one on that list of good causes is the
>> Joey McNicol Legal Defense Fund.
>>
>> So many people love spreading the FUD that SORBS accepts payment for
>> delisting... when the complete opposite is true.
>>
>> Michelle
>--
>
Well they would say that, wouldn't they :-)
Put "Joey McNicol Legal defense Fund" and "SORBS" into Google and the
word "extortion" seems to appear quite often. Whether SORBS takes
money themselves or requires you to put money somewhere else, they
are still getting you to shell out.
Don't I recognise your posting style from a few years ago on
uk.rec.models.engineering?
Jim
Al Bowlly
blew....
> Don't I recognise your posting style from a few years ago on
> uk.rec.models.engineering?
>
> Jim
Er no, that would be a place only the really sad and retarded hung out in.
jimguthrie
>> Don't I recognise your posting style from a few years ago on
>> uk.rec.models.engineering?
>>
>> Jim
>Er no, that would be a place only the really sad and retarded hung out in.
Now that's exactly the kind of response your alter ego would give :-)
Jim
Al Bowlly
blew....
> On 17 Dec 2009 06:51:53 GMT, Al Bowlly <j...@none.ntd> wrote this:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:36:31 +0000, Jim Guthrie struck up his trombone
>>and blew....
>>
>>> Don't I recognise your posting style from a few years ago on
>>> uk.rec.models.engineering?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>Er no, that would be a place only the really sad and retarded hung out
>>in.
>
> Is this an admission!
But being fair - it's a step up from the Amateur Radio/CB groups....
Al Bowlly
blew....
And it's still happening......
Received: from relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net (relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net
[212.159.7.100])
by . (spamtrap4) with ESMTP id C7766AD110
for <.>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:13:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Mastermix" <broa...@mastermixdj.com>
To: <....
Subject: [SPAM:6.8] Brand new Pro Disc, Pro Dance and Issue. Plus gift
18...
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 01:14:47 -0000
Reply-To: broa...@mastermixdj.com
Organization: Mastermix
Pro Disc 115, Pro Dance 24 and Issue 283 in stock now!
Cant see this mailout? click here
If you not longer wish to receive these emails, you can un-subscribe by e-
mailing us at in...@mastermixdj.com (including 'Unsubscribe MM' in the
header) - here