Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] anti-spam
  • Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:36:38 -0400

on Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 11:21:39AM -0400, Michael Winslow Czeiszperger wrote:
>
> On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 02:31 PM, Steven Champeon wrote:
>
> >1) ipchains - block certain spammers at the TCP level, using listings
> > from spews.org; I'll go in and add all the ROKSO spammers, too, as
> > time permits. Currently list 11067 netblocks.
>
> As much as I hate spam, I also don't like the way spews.org operates. I
> recently started having email from my host bounced from sites using
> spews.org, and when I went to spews.org to check on it, they had our IP
> address associated with a company I've never heard of that just
> happened to be using the same hosting company. Anyone checking on my
> company would get a report of a long list of spam activity that I had
> nothing to do with. The way spews operates is its totally anonymous,
> and there's no possible way to contact them in the case of a mistake.
>
> It wouldn't have made any difference even if I couldn't contact them
> since their SOP is to blacklist all of the IP addresses from the same
> hosting service, even if all but one of the actual companies are
> innocent. Luckily the workaround was fairly easy-- we simply use the
> sendmail servers of our network provider instead, but it was a pain to
> have to reconfigure all of our email systems.
>
> http://www.antispews.org

Yeah, I have some objections to spews.org, too. But their policy isn't
actually just to block all the IPs of a hosting service; that is only
done in the event of a longtime spammer being sheltered by an ISP. Yes,
I agree that collateral damage is bad (and especially so when it is
anonymous) but I'm willing to block a few networks up front if it means
also blocking potential future spam.

We were listed on the 5-10-sg BL, because we hosted with Inflow, who
hosts a spammer. It didn't matter that we weren't in the same netspace,
or even the same state. So I understand the frustration. Fortunately,
overzealous antispammers are self-limiting, in that moderates and those
who don't want collateral damage won't use spews level 2. I'm only using
Level 1 in ipchains, for that reason.

--
hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Book publishing is second only to furniture delivery in slowness. -b. schneier




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page