[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: dnsbl - trust and other factors

Just to also add to your derogatory comments "any random wannabe bofh
can do that"

There are actual informational RFC protocols followed: 
http://spamid.net/?spam=definitions
http://spamid.net/rfc5782.txt
http://spamid.net/rfc6471.txt

The only deviation that SUPERBLOCK.ASCAMS.COM has is a "three strike"
de-listing refusal - where the resource is on a more long term block,
until a known third party vouches for the resource. 
I am still formulating the proposal for that amendment to the RFC

Of course, superblock.ascams.com block.ascams.com and dnsbl.ascams.com
has more of an anti crime, anti phish focus, although they also have
strong anti spam focus - For reactive tech - which all blocklists are -
they are updated frequently, de-listing is easy, painless and within
hours.

So, even though you support systems that even I respect and support, we
have to grow and be honest with ourselves, admit that it does not work.

As I have said, and which nobody has yet contradicted: Internet Society
weight or focus leaning towards not dropping legit email is the reason
why we cannot stop spam.

Everything in life is a balance.

When you have a right to freedom of speech - this right has to be in
balance with your responsibility not to hate speech.

balance in ABUSE is out of whack - and your attitude of "since the 90's
blah blah" is why there is no change.

After 30 years of receiving spam, I am saying: ENOUGH!

We need change.

And, on a personal note Suresh, some your comments are derogatory and
negative - this does not help, develop, contribute or improve anything
and is not very constructive helpful or even useful.


Andre


On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:42:17 +0200
andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 14:05:51 +0530
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is something that Spamhaus, after operating a respected and
> > widely used block list since the 90s, understands and you don't 
> > The focus isn't just blocking spam, any random wannabe bofh can do
> > that. The focus is on as far as possible not blocking legitimate
> > email, and blocking / unblocking based on clear and maturely
> > implemented criteria 
> > 
> You are 100% correct!
> This is also why we still have a spam abuse problem, why our users are
> phished and why we cannot stop spam abuse.
> Also, Google.com transmits arguably around 50% plus of all email on
> the planet.
> yet, on superblock.ascams.com - no google.com listing...
> even a week ago, when superblock.ascams.com was sitting at 4,2 million
> ipv4 - 3 google.com servers
> today (around 2,6 million ipv4 - 0 ZERO google.com )
> 
> Yes, spam-traps receive copious amounts of spam from Google...!
> BUT, maybe once or twice to the same trap. Google manages abuse well,
> they respond to abuse complaints (by action) and they do not have
> ongoing abuse.
> 
> Twitter.com does not even WANT abuse complaints...
> 
> yet, society saying that "we do not want to drop legit email" is WHY
> we still have abuse.
> Andre
> 
> 
> > --srs
> > 
> > > On 10-Aug-2016, at 1:38 PM, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 09:19:21 +0200
> > > Antonio Prado <thinkofit at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >>> On 8/10/16 8:28 AM, andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> > >>> So why is this? - It is all about trust.
> > >> 
> > >> well, trust has to be earned.
> > >> 
> > > agreed, trust is reputation. In the case of a blacklist, it is
> > > quite simple though - if it is transparent, like mine
> > > superblock.ascams.com each and every listing has been abusive and
> > > either is not responding to abuse complaints or is simply ongoing
> > > in the abuse...
> > > 
> > >> just two recent examples:
> > >> 
> > > thank you so much! lets deal with that - please see below each
> > > of your examples
> > > 
> > >> Aug 10 08:52:16 zimbra-1 postfix/smtpd[27024]: NOQUEUE: reject:
> > >> RCPT from 66-220-144-147.outmail.facebook.com[66.220.144.147]:
> > >> 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [66.220.144.147]
> > >> blocked using superblock.ascams.com; 66.220.144.147 Listed For
> > >> Abuse. To delist please email del at ascams.com;
> > >> from=<notification+zj4ooysyaz0y at facebookmail.com>
> > >> to=<mylegitaddress at mylegitdomain.tld> proto=ESMTP
> > >> helo=<mx-out.facebook.com>
> > >> 
> > > Yes! because 66.220.144.147 is BLOCKED for abuse 
> > > 66.220.144.147 sends email spam, on an ongoing basis, to FAKE
> > > people and, even after receiving three or more abuse reports, is
> > > still sending the same SPAM to the same fake people.
> > > 
> > > So, what I am saying: facebook.com sends spam to
> > > example at example.com Facebook then receives 3+ spam
> > > reports/complaints And then
> > > After that
> > > Facebook.com STILL sends spam to the same example at example.com
> > > 
> > > So, Facebook.com (66.220.144.147) is blacklisted for spam abuse.
> > > 
> > > Thank you, Antonio - for pointing this example out - This is why
> > > we cannot stop spam! - the SENDERS or transmitters of spam - are
> > > never punished - but we have to field complaints from our USERS
> > > when the senders MIX legit email with spam email.
> > > 
> > > next example below the example
> > > 
> > >> Aug  9 17:57:23 smtpfe01 postfix/smtpd[15131]: NOQUEUE: reject:
> > >> RCPT from o4.email.wetransfer.com[192.254.123.89]: 554 5.7.1
> > >> Service unavailable; Client host [192.254.123.89] blocked using
> > >> superblock.ascams.com; 192.254.123.89 Listed For Abuse. To delist
> > >> please email del at ascams.com;
> > >> from=<alegitaddress at email.wetransfer.com>
> > >> to=<mylegitaddress at mylegitdomain.tld> proto=ESMTP
> > >> helo=<o4.email.wetransfer.com>
> > >> 
> > > 192.254.123.89 - EXACLTY the same as Facebook.com - transmits spam
> > > to fake people/spam traps - and does not do anything about spam
> > > abuse complaints!
> > > 
> > >> therefore I'm forced to delete superblock.ascams.com
> > > 
> > > indeed... - this is why the spam problem persists... yet, if you
> > > were to continue using superblock.ascams.com - you may actually
> > > force the senders of spam to CHANGE their abusive and crappy
> > > behavior
> > > 
> > > But we, society, we do not have the BALLS to do that.
> > > 
> > > Can we at least have the decency to be honest with ourselves?
> > > 
> > > Why lie to ourselves?
> > > 
> > > We do not want to solve the spam abuse problem.
> > > 
> > > Andre
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> --
> > >> antonio
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > 
> 
>