RE: introducing PolSpam
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:19:20 +0300
Hello!
I don't think blacklists is a good solution of the problem. Of cource you
can remove yourself from a blacklist if you got to it by mistake. But the
problem is the huge number of the lists (national, international, custom,
enterprise....). And it takes much more time to remove an address from the
lists than to fight with spam locally. And you are never sure if one of the
lists eventually adds your address by mistake.
There is another problem (another, but not the last). It seems there are
lists which are not so fair as anounced. As an example I copy a part of a
letter to me:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: John Oliver [john.oliver@localhost]
To: poty@localhost
Vladislav Potapov wrote:
>
> Dear John,
>
> There are many e-mail addresses in the RIPE whois database, but not all of
> them can help you. You must know what addresses really mean what services
> BEFORE using them. Or you may be treated as a spammer (I'm not speaking
> about me in that particular case).
I have no control over what RIPE does. Again... if they list incorrect
information, you have to take that up with them. I have nothing to do
with them and no control over the accuracy of their listings. When I
see abuse coming from RIPE netspace, I have no choice but to LART all
available addresses, since most bounce anyway. If you're improperly
listed, you'll have to remove yourself or you'll continue to receive
reports for abuse emanating from a network that you're listed as
responsible for. I have no way of keeping track of special exceptions,
and no real interest in doing so, either.
As for "treating me like a spammer", you're welcome to try. But don't
be surprised when the backlash is far more painful than you can possibly
imagine... most anti-spammers take a very, very dim view of abuse
reports being treated as "spam", and I happen to know or have
connections with a lot of well-known blocklist sites. If large, Tier 1
ISPs feel the pain of entry into these lists, I can guarantee you
wouldn't enjoy joining them, either.
--
John Oliver
System Administrator
hosting.com, an Allegiance Telecom company
(858) 637-3600
http://www.hosting.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
The matter is in the field "changed" of the RIPE DB. About a year ago a
customer left our company and I changed the maintainer of his person object
to another one. But I receive a lot of e-mails daily asking me to stop
abusing (spamming...) from the addresses which are in his new location's
control. I asked John to change his filters to not to send letters to
e-mails listed in "changed" field. The rest you know...
That's the life, of course, bot not the very pleasure side of it.
Sincerely yours,
Vladislav Potapov
ru.iiat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pawel Krawczyk []
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 6:34 PM
> To: Xander Jansen
> Cc: Mally Mclane; anti-spam-wg@localhost
> Subject: Re: introducing PolSpam
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:25:50PM +0100, Xander Jansen wrote:
>
> > Not only that, it also comes from forged but real
> addresses. And that will
> > be a real problem. It is true that blocking on From:
> addresses can be very
> > effective but you will most likely also put a ban on valid
> addresses of
> > people who never ever sent spam but who's (whose ?) address has been
> > abused as originator in spam. And yes, they abused my
> address a few times
> > so I would probably also appear on the list sooner or later ;-(
>
> This has happened to me in the past as well, but the project is led
> by humans for humans, and we don't have any fascist policy like
> saying once you got blacklisted, you'll never get out of the list.
>
> --
> Pawel Krawczyk
> Krakow, POLAND
> http://ipsec.pl/
> http://ceti.pl/~kravietz/
>