Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

2 participants
1876 discussions

http://www.antiphishing.org/
by Jeff Chan 09 Sep '04

09 Sep '04

Does anyone know anybody at antiphishing.org? It might be nice if we could get them to publish their phishing data as a SURBL or add it to PH. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

3 6

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] test.surbl.org
by Chris Santerre 09 Sep '04

09 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:felicity@kluge.net] >Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 10:59 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] test.surbl.org > > >On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 11:08:17AM -0300, Leonardo Helman wrote: >> Should I send this to spamassasin list? > >Questionable. > >> That's because it only checks the registered domain and >> not its subdomains? > >Yes. The SA 3.0 URIDNSBL plugin trims down to the actual domain for >the query. > >That's to avoid something like: > >foo.bar.baz.test.something.else.spam.com > >where if it wasn't just domain only, there'd be queries for: > >foo.bar.baz.test.something.else.spam.com >bar.baz.test.something.else.spam.com >baz.test.something.else.spam.com >test.something.else.spam.com >something.else.spam.com >else.spam.com >spam.com > >which is just bad for lots of reasons. > But for research giggles, the SURBL lookup page on the SARE website DOES do this ;) It helps make it somewhat user friendly as well. But like Theo said, doing this in SA would be bad. --Chris

2 1

Draw the line (was: Need help checking FP list from Theo)
by SM 09 Sep '04

09 Sep '04

Hi Chris, At 08:09 08-09-2004, Chris Santerre wrote: >NO it doesn't! The point was..... its interesting!! :) 123inkjets has been >linked to a ton of other spam domains. The fact that they have customers >makes it legit???? SO anyone who falls for these spams and buys something, >makes it legit? Think about that. Where do you draw the line? If a few legitimate customers are enough to get a domain off a blacklist, then most of the domains currently listed will sooner or later get off. There will always be false positives because one man's spam is another man's ham. Someone should draw the line somewhere. Regards, -sm

3 3

SARE_FRAUD into PH? (Was: RE: Mass-check errors)
by Jeff Chan 09 Sep '04

09 Sep '04

David Hooton, This message prompts me to ask, are we getting the SARE_FRAUD data into PH? If not... Chris and other SARE guys, can you get the SARE_FRAUD records to David for inclusion in PH? Jeff C. __ This is a forwarded message From: Smart,Dan <SmartD(a)VMCMAIL.com> To: SpamAssassin-users(a)incubator.apache.org Date: Wednesday, September 8, 2004, 7:12:26 AM Subject: Mass-check errors ===8<==============Original message text=============== > -----Original Message----- > From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:felicity@kluge.net] > Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 7:12 PM > To: Smart,Dan > Cc: SpamAssassin-users(a)incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Mass-check errors > TextCat looks for $rulesdir/languages, which via your above > command is /etc/mail/spamassassin/languages ... > > -- Thanks Theo. I ended up running Dprof against spamassassin, which was simpler to get running. What I found was that the Textcat language rules was main time-sink, followed by the SARE_FRAUD ruleset. Since SURBL now has the PH list, I removed the FRAUD ruleset too. <<Dan>> ===8<===========End of original message text===========

1 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Need help checking FP list from Theo
by Chris Santerre 09 Sep '04

09 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 9:38 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Re: Need help checking FP list from Theo > > >On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, 6:16:36 PM, Jeff Chan wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, 5:40:47 PM, Joe Wein wrote: >>> Chris Santerre wrote: >>>> Domain List matching contacts_email of hostmaster(a)1and1.com >>>> >>>> * 1: 1-asian-sex.com >>>> * 2: 1and1.com >>> ... >>>> * 48: uptimesoftware.com >>>> * 49: wonderfulldeals.com > >>> I think you're missing the point, Chris. The domain >1and1.com is unlikely to >>> be listed in spam, let alone *only* listed in spam. >Furthermore, of the >>> domains you list I had a hard time finding one that was >both active and >>> SURBL-listed. > >> I hope Chris was showing us some other domains with similar >> registration information. That said, *registrar* information >> isn't to useful except in the case of mostly blackhat registrars. > >I should add, this kind of data is only useful in proving a >blackhat registrar if we also know how many other domains >they have registered. > >If a registrar has 100 spam domains but 100,000 legitimate >ones they're probably not a blackhat registrar. If another >registrar has 100 spam domains but 20 legitimate ones, they're >likely a blackhat. Domains belonging to the second registrar >could be "scored" as more likely spammy by some yet to be >written (or revealed) software. However that only works if >you can see the other 100,000 and the 20, which normally you >can't. > >In other words not enough information may be visible to >draw reliable conclusions about the badness of a given >registrar. On the other hand some general information >about the number of domains some large registrar holds is >available at registration statistics sites like: > > http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/registrar-stats-2003.html > Jeff and Joe, This is exactly why I posted this info! For info purposes. I don't know a german web hoster from a hole in the wall! (Thats a crazy american saying for I don't know jack about them!) But I do have access to similar registrar info. And quite a lot more then what I posted. It is my hope that one day I can make it privately availible to SURBL guys. But right now I can't. Look at Jeff's comment: " > Domain List matching cluster of russ-effrig > * 1: 007inkjets.com > * 2: 00inkjets.com > * 3: 111inkjets.com > * 4: 123cartridges.com > * 5: 123inkjets.com [...] >That's interesting, but I think it misses the point:" NO it doesn't! The point was..... its interesting!! :) 123inkjets has been linked to a ton of other spam domains. The fact that they have customers makes it legit???? SO anyone who falls for these spams and buys something, makes it legit? Think about that. Where do you draw the line? All spams will have some suckers. All spams will therefore have customers. All spams will have SOMEONE report it is legit. This shall forever now be known as the Santerre Theory of Spam Legitamicy. :) I fully intend to be the Ying to Jeff's Yang. *giggle* SO we gather a few things from the info I posted, and added to by what you guys know. 1and1 is ok to whitelist. But 123inkjets is a more difficult domain. For me I say leave them listed. Sometimes legit companies spam. If they feel little pain, they will do it again. I hate FPs as much as Jeff. --Chris

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Whitelist all Bonded Senders?
by Chris Santerre 08 Sep '04

08 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 5:04 AM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Whitelist all Bonded Senders? > > >On Saturday, September 4, 2004, 2:01:05 AM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: >>> >> How about www.senderbase.org ? > >>> > I would not go that way, people can test on >senderbase/bonded sender, and >>> > just like habaes this will be abused also. In my SA setup >the above scores >>> > are also taken, and will bias the score... > >>> Are any of them grey? Bonded sender claims they have paid out >>> only tiny amounts of bonds due to violations. >>> >>> Remember that not everyone uses SA. I'd like to have a list of >>> non-spammers to exclude from SURBLs. > >> I have requested rsync access on the zones, they have >responded to that >> and we will setup a feed, afterwards i can have a look on >the zones, and >> check a little better. More indepth... > >Sounds perfectly reasonable. We can check if any of their >customers hit our lists. > >Are there any other nominally whitehatting organizations >we could check into? Are there any real whitehat >certification groups? Anyone who mentions DMA will be introduced to my hockey stick! Just want to make sure we are all clear on that one ;) -note- DMA = Direct Marketers Assoc. = the evil empire --Chris

3 3

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Need help checking FP list from Theo
by Chris Santerre 08 Sep '04

08 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 6:20 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Need help checking FP list from Theo > > >On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, 9:18:31 AM, Doc Schneider wrote: > >> I'm totally shocked that yale and seti could even be >considered "spammy" > >> And can I help with the flogging? <BOFH> > >Because they appeared in a ham does not mean they're spammy. >Sometimes it just means that some other URI in that message >got tagged. > >E.g., a message like: > > "I buy my pills from walgreens.com (a U.S. brick > and mortar pharmacy) not randompillspammer.com." > >could get tagged since it mentions a spammer. But it >doesn't mean walgreens.com is necessarily a spammer. > >Similarly seti and yale probably got mentioned along >with a listed record. > What the (#&@? So we got a list of ALL domains that were in FP reported emails. Instead of JUST the ones that actually caused the FP??????? *sigh* Well there's a few hours of my life I won't get back! --Chris

2 1

Savvis potentially shutting down 148 spammers on its network
by William Stearns 08 Sep '04

08 Sep '04

Good day, all, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3634572.stm , seen on slashdot. I don't know anything more than what's there, but it would be marvelous if their claim of shutting off their spamming customers within 10 days was true. Just in case it does turn out to be true, we ought to release SA 3.0 before they do, so we can take credit for the drastically reduced amount of spam. *grin* Just kidding. Cheers, - Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it." - Dr Samuel Johnson (1775) (Courtesy of David Cozzens, <dcozzens(a)ejhs.k12.vt.us>) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Stearns (wstearns(a)pobox.com). Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f, rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at: http://www.stearns.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Whitelist Please
by Chris Santerre 08 Sep '04

08 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >In a gamer's analogy, we have the BFG9000 with quad damage >and friendly fire is on. Well now I get it! :-) --Chris

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Numerous FPs
by Chris Santerre 08 Sep '04

08 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 6:29 PM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Numerous FPs > > >On Tuesday, September 7, 2004, 8:18:20 AM, Chris Santerre wrote: >> Some info: > >> Domain List matching contacts_email of can_craft(a)yahoo.com > >> * 1: a2zsol.com >> * 2: bannerscape.com >> * 3: db-hosting.com >> * 4: global-submit.com >> * 5: mardox.com <-- >> * 6: safe-mail.com >> * 7: safemaildeluxe.com > >> Domain List matching contacts_email of hostmaster(a)hotels.com > >> * 1: 180096hotel.com >> * 2: 8002hotels.com >> * 3: hoteldiscounts.com <-- >> * 4: hotelresnetwork.com >> * 5: vegashotel.com > >> Not sure if that helps to decide on those 2. But can't hurt >to have the info >> :) > >Are you saying we should whitelist them all or that some >are spammy? > >If you have research that shows one way or the other, >then please let us know. > >Jeff C. > Nope, not saying anything. It was just some info to look at. It didn't sway me either way. But not everyone has access to this info. Matter of fact I can count them on one hand ;) --Chris

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss