[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Massive increase of spam on debian-*@l.d.o



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

Robin Lynn Frank <rlfrank@paradigm-omega.com> writes:

> On Thursday 06 May 2004 00:36, Paul Johnson, Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca>  
> wrote:
>> Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org> writes:
>> >      Personally I haven't used any of my hosting company's email
>> > servers since setting up my own server.  In the same time I've never
>> > sent out virus email or been an open relay.  Yet because of boneheaded
>> > ideas like the above I now have to get around idiotic, lazy blocks.
>> > Tired of it.
>>
>> I agree.  Dialup/residential IP lists used for blocking purposes is
>> pretty retarded.  However, using something like bl.spamcop.net, which
>> only lists currently spamming IPs, is considerably more useful.
>>
> Actually, you can block a lot of infected boxes by blocking dynamic IPs, so 
> there is something to be said for it.

I disagree.  Dialup/residential IP lists used for blocking purposes is
pretty retarded.  There's better ways to block infected boxes.
http://ursine.ca/article.pl?sid=04/04/11/1127234

> But tell me, since spamcop accepts reports from anyone able to click a mouse 
> button, which of the following are they NOT subject to?
>
> 1.  Reports from people to stupid or lazy to unsubscribe lists or newsletters 
> they receive.

If the postmaster of the wrongly-listed site follows through and can
prove that the reporting person really did subscribe and can prove
they confirmed the subscription, then the reporter gets fined, or
banned if they're a persistent false-reporter.

> 2.  Spammers intentionally reporting legitimate mail sources with the intent 
> to keep the number of false positives high enough that people will not risk 
> using spamcop.

The maintainers watch for this sort of abuse closely and have zero
tolerence for it.

> In the past few days, I've seen netfilter.org's list and foxnews in spamcop.  
> They were both removed, but the fact remains that they should never have been 
> there to begin with.

FoxNews has newsletters that don't confirm subscription, they should
have forseen getting listed fairly universally for handling their
newsletters the wrong way.

- -- 
Paul Johnson
<baloo@ursine.ca>
Linux.  You can find a worse OS, but it costs more.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAmoRAUzgNqloQMwcRAmc+AJ0XU4OFsr0nCU4ZKMDdHoM8Q9rexwCg0Ba4
G1ZwB86W1rpA2cD0LHIF0gI=
=TdK9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: