You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Rejaine Monteiro <re...@bhz.jamef.com.br> on 2009/03/31 15:43:15 UTC
zen.spamhaus.org
Hi
The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
Somebody noticed some problem?
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Noel Jones <no...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Rejaine Monteiro
<re...@bhz.jamef.com.br> wrote:
> Hi
>
> The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
>
> Somebody noticed some problem?
>
>
list.dsbl.org has been dead for about a year. You shouldn't be using
it. Please see
http://www.dsbl.org
spamhaus will disable access if you exceed their volume limitations. Please see
http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/dnsblusage.html
Spamhaus lists are effective enough that it's probably worth buying a data feed.
-- Noel Jones
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Michael Scheidell <sc...@secnap.net>.
Curtis LaMasters wrote:
> Is there an easy way to tell how many times I'm querying their servers
> from Spamassassin? I doubt I'm any where near those numbers but it
> would be nice to know.
>
>
look for 'dnstop'.
run it for a while
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
Phone: 561-999-5000, x 1259
> *| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Certified SNORT Integrator
* 2009 Hot Company Award, World Executive Alliance
* Five-Star Partner Program 2009, VARBusiness
* Best Anti-Spam Product 2008, Network Products Guide
* King of Spam Filters, SC Magazine 2008
_________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r).
For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/
_________________________________________________________________________
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Curtis LaMasters <cu...@gmail.com>.
Is there an easy way to tell how many times I'm querying their servers
from Spamassassin? I doubt I'm any where near those numbers but it
would be nice to know.
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Martin Hepworth <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe you went over their acceptable use limit?
>
> 2009/3/31 Rejaine Monteiro <re...@bhz.jamef.com.br>:
>> Hi
>>
>> The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
>>
>> Somebody noticed some problem?
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Hepworth
> Oxford, UK
>
Re: emailreg.org (was: zen.spamhaus.org)
Posted by Rik <hl...@buzzhost.co.uk>.
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 18:50 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * SM <sm...@resistor.net>:
> > At 01:19 10-04-2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> >> They could simply offer free registration for "old" domains...
> >
> > They could. I doubt that someone running such a service would do that if
> > people are willing to pay.
>
> Indeed!
>
One major point is being missed here. If you *don't* send out UCE,
you'll never need these services or be worried by things like $pamhaus.
You could host with Rackspace or Fasthosts and become immune from the
$pamhaus 'order of the loyal spammer' Keeeerrrrrchinnnnng. Those Court
Cases don't come for free...
Re: emailreg.org (was: zen.spamhaus.org)
Posted by Ralf Hildebrandt <Ra...@charite.de>.
* SM <sm...@resistor.net>:
> At 01:19 10-04-2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>> They could simply offer free registration for "old" domains...
>
> They could. I doubt that someone running such a service would do that if
> people are willing to pay.
Indeed!
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12200 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de | http://www.charite.de
Re: emailreg.org (was: zen.spamhaus.org)
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, SM wrote:
> I don't see any difference in the usage of ".org" instead of ".com" as
> there are commercial organizations that use it.
That's a registrars-don't-follow-the-rules problem, not an
extortionate-Barracuda problem.
>> AND EXCEPT TO ASK: Is that $20 fee a one-time fee? Or a yearly fee? Or,
>> does it have any kind of expiration date?
>
> Who knows? It will be interesting to see whether the rules are included
> in a SpamAssassin distribution.
I think it was stated that the fee is annual.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
USMC Rules of Gunfighting #9: Accuracy is relative: most combat
shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than
the inherent accuracy of the gun.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3 days until Thomas Jefferson's 266th Birthday
Re: emailreg.org (was: zen.spamhaus.org)
Posted by SM <sm...@resistor.net>.
At 01:19 10-04-2009, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
>They could simply offer free registration for "old" domains...
They could. I doubt that someone running such a service would do
that if people are willing to pay.
At 04:52 10-04-2009, Rob McEwen wrote:
>I don't understand your last sentence above. It seems to make no sense.
I'll clarify off-list.
>EXCEPT TO STATE: Who knows much of anything for absolute certain about
>this situation? For example, it is entirely within the realm of
>possibility that emailreg.org is a separate non-commercial and
>non-profit organization (as the ".org" seems to imply?). And maybe
>emailreg.org really is a separate entity from Barracuda (as the
I don't see any difference in the usage of ".org" instead of ".com"
as there are commercial organizations that use it.
>AND EXCEPT TO ASK: Is that $20 fee a one-time fee? Or a yearly fee? Or,
>does it have any kind of expiration date?
Who knows? It will be interesting to see whether the rules are
included in a SpamAssassin distribution.
Regards,
-sm
Re: emailreg.org (was: zen.spamhaus.org)
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Fri, April 10, 2009 10:19, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> They could simply offer free registration for "old" domains...
+1
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
Re: emailreg.org (was: zen.spamhaus.org)
Posted by Ralf Hildebrandt <Ra...@charite.de>.
* SM <sm...@resistor.net>:
> The usage policy at http://www.emailreg.org/index.cgi?p=policy mentions
> that there is a $20 registration fee to "discourage domain tasters from
> sending spam and to further verify the contact information".
They could simply offer free registration for "old" domains...
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Campus Benjamin Franklin
Hindenburgdamm 30 | D-12200 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 450 570 155 | Fax: +49 30 450 570 962
Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de | http://www.charite.de
Re: emailreg.org
Posted by Rob McEwen <ro...@invaluement.com>.
SM wrote:
> Are you upset because people are paying money to a site with a domain
> owner hidden by the Whois privacy registration? :-) Some antispam
> offers are big and easy money as there's always somebody ready to pay
> or to jump on the bandwagon because it is free.
I don't understand your last sentence above. It seems to make no sense.
But, regardless, I have been given both legal council and business
advice (each coming from different perspectives) that I should make no
further public comments regarding the operation of BRBL and
emailreg.org, at least not on a forum as public as the SA list.
EXCEPT TO STATE: Who knows much of anything for absolute certain about
this situation? For example, it is entirely within the realm of
possibility that emailreg.org is a separate non-commercial and
non-profit organization (as the ".org" seems to imply?). And maybe
emailreg.org really is a separate entity from Barracuda (as the
Barracuda's BRBL removal page seems to imply?). Some may ask, how could
that be? Simple. Barracuda may have simply donated the address space
and/or web hosting to the emailreg.org organization. Simple as that!.
And that (alone!) would be enough to explain the emailreg.org web site
being hosted in Barracuda address space.
AND EXCEPT TO ASK: Is that $20 fee a one-time fee? Or a yearly fee? Or,
does it have any kind of expiration date?
Beyond this statement and question, I'll leave it to others to do their
own research and draw their own conclusions.
--
Rob McEwen
http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
rob@invaluement.com
+1 (478) 475-9032
emailreg.org (was: zen.spamhaus.org)
Posted by SM <sm...@resistor.net>.
Hi Rob,
At 12:52 07-04-2009, Rob McEwen wrote:
>I had no idea that emailreg.org was owned and operated by Barracuda. I
http://www.barracudacentral.org/about/emailreg
http://www.emailreg.org/index.cgi?p=about
>But, as the post you mentioned said, emailreg.org resolves to
>64.235.146.64 and arin.net shows that 64.235.146.64 is clearly in
>Barracuda's assigned address space. I'll tell you right now... this is
>BIG and EASY money. Very BIG and very EASY money. I suspect they are
>pulling in hundreds... maybe even thousands... of those $20 payments per
>day.
The usage policy at http://www.emailreg.org/index.cgi?p=policy
mentions that there is a $20 registration fee to "discourage domain
tasters from sending spam and to further verify the contact information".
>(if I seem upset about this... read between the lines... and you might
>understand why)
Are you upset because people are paying money to a site with a domain
owner hidden by the Whois privacy registration? :-) Some antispam
offers are big and easy money as there's always somebody ready to pay
or to jump on the bandwagon because it is free.
Regards,
-sm
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Rob McEwen <ro...@invaluement.com>.
LuKreme wrote:
> How about the 3rd post that exposes barracuda as a money-grubbing
> racketeering operation?
> "Barracuda own and operate emailreg.org, although there is no mention
> of this on the emailreg.org site, and the whois data is obscured.
> Indeed the owners of emailreg.org have gone to a lot of trouble to
> hide who they are, which would be illegal for a UK operated website of
> this type."
> Stay away. Stay far away.
I had no idea that emailreg.org was owned and operated by Barracuda. I
thought they were two separate entities. (though I did have my
suspicions about that relationship)
But, as the post you mentioned said, emailreg.org resolves to
64.235.146.64 and arin.net shows that 64.235.146.64 is clearly in
Barracuda's assigned address space. I'll tell you right now... this is
BIG and EASY money. Very BIG and very EASY money. I suspect they are
pulling in hundreds... maybe even thousands... of those $20 payments per
day.
If there is just 150 of these per business day, they've already cleared
a million $$ per year. Maybe there aren't that many?...but I suspect
that this number might be closer to a thousand per day, which would be
into the tens of millions of dollars per year.
(if I seem upset about this... read between the lines... and you might
understand why)
--
Rob McEwen
http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
rob@invaluement.com
+1 (478) 475-9032
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 7-Apr-2009, at 13:30, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> ...apparently, not enough trouble:
Yep, they were found out via DNS. It is Their whois data that is
obfuscated
Domain Name:EMAILREG.ORG
Created On:12-Apr-2008 21:40:49 UTC
Last Updated On:02-Apr-2009 18:45:33 UTC
Expiration Date:12-Apr-2010 21:40:49 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:94adaac5a507a44d
Registrant Name:Whois Agent
Registrant Organization:Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
and there is nothing on the websites that gives any information on
them being related.
Either way, they've showed themselves to me to be little different
than the spammer scum. I'd be seriously tempted to blacklist anyone
stupid enough to use the barracuda RBL.
--
Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn't like TV news, is it?
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 7-Apr-2009, at 08:39, Rob McEwen wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>> I've been reading up a bit on Barracuda et al, like:
>>
>> http://www.email-ethics.com/2009/01/emailregorg-project.html
>> http://zacharyozer.blogspot.com/2008/10/worst-engineers-ever.html
>> http://www.debian-administration.org/users/simonw/weblog/295
>>
>> And now I'm even more convinced that I will not be using Barracuda.
>> Sorry.
>
> Regarding that earlier point about DNSBLs which claim to be more
How about the 3rd post that exposes barracuda as a money-grubbing
racketeering operation?
"Barracuda own and operate emailreg.org, although there is no mention
of this on the emailreg.org site, and the whois data is obscured.
Indeed the owners of emailreg.org have gone to a lot of trouble to
hide who they are, which would be illegal for a UK operated website of
this type."
Stay away. Stay far away.
--
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don t
know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases
want to be president.
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Rob McEwen <ro...@invaluement.com>.
Mark wrote:
> I've been reading up a bit on Barracuda et al, like:
>
> http://www.email-ethics.com/2009/01/emailregorg-project.html
> http://zacharyozer.blogspot.com/2008/10/worst-engineers-ever.html
> http://www.debian-administration.org/users/simonw/weblog/295
>
> And now I'm even more convinced that I will not be using Barracuda. Sorry.
Mark,
Regarding that earlier point about DNSBLs which claim to be more
aggressive than SpamHaus... there are many IPs well deserving of being
on a blacklist which are either missed by SpamHaus, or not caught very
quickly by SpamHaus. Additionally, different DNSBLs use different
techniques and, therefore, no one DNSBL can do even close to everything.
However, it is true that *most* DNSBLs which claim to be
low-FP lists (and which block much spam missed by SpamHaus) have more
FPs than Zen--to varying degrees.
--
Rob McEwen
http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/
rob@invaluement.com
+1 (478) 475-9032
RE: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Mark <ad...@asarian-host.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:maxsec@gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 31 maart 2009 20:56
> To: hlug090104@buzzhost.co.uk
> Cc: Rejaine Monteiro; Spamassassin list
> Subject: Re: zen.spamhaus.org
>
> > When someone tells me 'their' list is much more aggressive than
> > spamhaus, my first reaction is not: "Oh, coolie, more to block!"
> > More like: "Another one of those overly aggressive blocklists that
> > in its rampant 'Off with their heads' policy just renders itself
> > pretty much useless." So, indeed, thanks, but not no thanks.
>
> Just my experience, but the barracuda list performs pretty well here
> (we have just enough volume to be a paying subscriber to zen). I
> wouldn't call it more aggressive than zen necessarily. They both have
> an occasional FP, maybe slightly more from barracuda, but if your
> scoring is good that almost never presents an issue. Some of our
> clients outright block using both. I haven't had to deal with any
> complaints due to either one in a very long time.
I've been reading up a bit on Barracuda et al, like:
http://www.email-ethics.com/2009/01/emailregorg-project.html
http://zacharyozer.blogspot.com/2008/10/worst-engineers-ever.html
http://www.debian-administration.org/users/simonw/weblog/295
And now I'm even more convinced that I will not be using Barracuda. Sorry.
- Mark
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Aaron Wolfe <aa...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Mark <ad...@asarian-host.net> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:maxsec@gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 31 maart 2009 20:56
> To: hlug090104@buzzhost.co.uk
> Cc: Rejaine Monteiro; Spamassassin list
> Subject: Re: zen.spamhaus.org
>
>> Err no.
>>
>> spamhaus is great for low use. For high use they expect you to pay -
>> see the T&C's for use. Heck they gotta eat ya know.
>
> Yeah, how very unreasonable of them. :) Like with anything, if you want to
> make commercial use of (and off) it, just pay a fee.
>
>> As for the barracuda rbl...well didn't add any value for me when I
>> ran it for a couple of months. Scored spam with other tools and
>> actually caught a few FP's which is kinda what i see in their pay
>> for product at newplace of work. Basically not worth the bother IMHO
>
> When someone tells me 'their' list is much more aggressive than spamhaus,
> my first reaction is not: "Oh, coolie, more to block!" More like: "Another
> one of those overly aggressive blocklists that in its rampant 'Off with
> their heads' policy just renders itself pretty much useless." So, indeed,
> thanks, but not no thanks.
>
Just my experience, but the barracuda list performs pretty well here
(we have just enough volume to be a paying subscriber to zen). I
wouldn't call it more aggressive than zen necessarily. They both have
an occasional FP, maybe slightly more from barracuda, but if your
scoring is good that almost never presents an issue. Some of our
clients outright block using both. I haven't had to deal with any
complaints due to either one in a very long time.
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Michael Scheidell <sc...@secnap.net>.
>
> When someone tells me 'their' list is much more aggressive than spamhaus,
> my first reaction is not: "Oh, coolie, more to block!" More like: "Another
> one of those overly aggressive blocklists that in its rampant 'Off with
> their heads' policy just renders itself pretty much useless." So, indeed,
> thanks, but not no thanks.
My list beats them all, and its way more aggressive then barracuda.
Google for 'blocked.secnap.net' before being stupid enough to use it without
knowing exactly the criteria for entry into that list.
(but, if you use it, it will block 100% of all your spam.. And email)
>
> - Mark
>
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
>|SECNAP Network Security
Finalist 2009 Network Products Guide Hot Companies
FreeBSD SpamAssassin Ports maintainer
_________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned and certified safe by SpammerTrap(r).
For Information please see http://www.secnap.com/products/spammertrap/
_________________________________________________________________________
RE: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Mark <ad...@asarian-host.net>.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Hepworth [mailto:maxsec@gmail.com]
Sent: dinsdag 31 maart 2009 20:56
To: hlug090104@buzzhost.co.uk
Cc: Rejaine Monteiro; Spamassassin list
Subject: Re: zen.spamhaus.org
> Err no.
>
> spamhaus is great for low use. For high use they expect you to pay -
> see the T&C's for use. Heck they gotta eat ya know.
Yeah, how very unreasonable of them. :) Like with anything, if you want to
make commercial use of (and off) it, just pay a fee.
> As for the barracuda rbl...well didn't add any value for me when I
> ran it for a couple of months. Scored spam with other tools and
> actually caught a few FP's which is kinda what i see in their pay
> for product at newplace of work. Basically not worth the bother IMHO
When someone tells me 'their' list is much more aggressive than spamhaus,
my first reaction is not: "Oh, coolie, more to block!" More like: "Another
one of those overly aggressive blocklists that in its rampant 'Off with
their heads' policy just renders itself pretty much useless." So, indeed,
thanks, but not no thanks.
- Mark
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Martin Hepworth <ma...@gmail.com>.
2009/3/31 Rik <hl...@buzzhost.co.uk>:
>
> On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 15:33 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>> Maybe you went over their acceptable use limit?
>>
>> 2009/3/31 Rejaine Monteiro <re...@bhz.jamef.com.br>:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
>> >
>> > Somebody noticed some problem?
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
> That is possible - $pamhaus are all about the money and not much about
> the spam. IMHO they happily take back handers to overlook dodgy activity
> with 'favoured' hosts.
>
> Use the Barracuda list - it's pretty aggressive and makes $pamhaus look
> very lame indeed. In fact it laughs in their face. It came about when
> $pamhaus tried to blackmail owners of a well known appliance into paying
> for a feed. USE: b.barracudacentral.org.
>
> It's known as $pamhaus... Those court cases and trips around the world
> don't come for free and I have very little respect for them.
>
>
>
Err no.
spamhaus is great for low use. For high use they expect you to pay -
see the T&C's for use. Heck they gotta eat ya know.
As for the barracuda rbl...well didn't add any value for me when I ran
it for a couple of months. Scored spam with other tools and actually
caught a few FP's which is kinda what i see in their pay for product
at newplace of work. Basically not worth the bother IMHO
--
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 31-Mar-2009, at 12:17, Rik wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 15:33 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>> Maybe you went over their acceptable use limit?
>>
>> 2009/3/31 Rejaine Monteiro <re...@bhz.jamef.com.br>:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
>>>
>>> Somebody noticed some problem?
> That is possible - $pamhaus are all about the money and not much about
> the spam. IMHO they happily take back handers to overlook dodgy
> activity
> with 'favoured' hosts.
Erm, wtf are you talking about? Is this you just libeling spamhaus or
do you have any evidence whatsoever of this?
> Use the Barracuda list - it's pretty aggressive and makes $pamhaus
> look
> very lame indeed. In fact it laughs in their face. It came about when
> $pamhaus tried to blackmail owners of a well known appliance into
> paying
> for a feed. USE: b.barracudacentral.org.
Um.. spamhaus charges for feeds for certain connection levels or for
commercial use. There is no blackmail.
Provide evidence or STFU.
--
...gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed
the were not here,
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Tue, March 31, 2009 20:17, Rik wrote:
> It's known as $pamhaus... Those court cases and trips around the
> world don't come for free and I have very little respect for them.
#!/bin/sh
USE="-war" emerge bind
change resolv.conf to
nameserver 127.0.0.1
do you hate me ? :)))
--
http://localhost/ 100% uptime and 100% mirrored :)
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by John Rudd <jr...@ucsc.edu>.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:17, Rik <hl...@buzzhost.co.uk> wrote:
>
[drivel about Spamhaus snipped]
>
> Use the Barracuda list - it's pretty aggressive [...] USE: b.barracudacentral.org.
>
What rate of false positives does it get?
What is the basis of being listed?
Does it have sub-lists to cover different listing criteria?
What is the method for getting removed?
Is there a mechanism for keeping local copies of the zone(s)?
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Rik <hl...@buzzhost.co.uk>.
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 15:33 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> Maybe you went over their acceptable use limit?
>
> 2009/3/31 Rejaine Monteiro <re...@bhz.jamef.com.br>:
> > Hi
> >
> > The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
> >
> > Somebody noticed some problem?
> >
> >
>
>
>
That is possible - $pamhaus are all about the money and not much about
the spam. IMHO they happily take back handers to overlook dodgy activity
with 'favoured' hosts.
Use the Barracuda list - it's pretty aggressive and makes $pamhaus look
very lame indeed. In fact it laughs in their face. It came about when
$pamhaus tried to blackmail owners of a well known appliance into paying
for a feed. USE: b.barracudacentral.org.
It's known as $pamhaus... Those court cases and trips around the world
don't come for free and I have very little respect for them.
Re: zen.spamhaus.org
Posted by Martin Hepworth <ma...@gmail.com>.
Maybe you went over their acceptable use limit?
2009/3/31 Rejaine Monteiro <re...@bhz.jamef.com.br>:
> Hi
>
> The zen.spamhaus.org list.dsbl.org stops working here.
>
> Somebody noticed some problem?
>
>
--
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK