Subject: Spam Relaying Databases

From: Rob Wurster <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:05:24 -0400

To Whom It May Concern,
I am new to this so I will make it brief.  The problem concerns spam relay
databases currently operating on the web.  I find no problem with their
intended purpose but I do have a problem with some abuses that are occurring
by an organization known as SORBS (i.e., dnsbl.sorbs.net.)  We have been put
into their database and delisted on numerous instances based on the fact
that our router was hijacked over one year ago as a spam relay.  Granted we
were in error but the problem has been fixed.  However, as stated above, we
continue to become listed in their database.  This apparently is from
residual effects from the initial listing.
Conclusively, I find a need to help them rid their servers of redundant and
erroneous listings.  How this is possible I do not know but would like to
share my experience and make the problem known.
 
Thank you for your time,

Rob Wurster   MCSE NT4.0 & Windows 2000;  MCP+I
NT Administrator
Bowyer Singleton & Associates, Inc.
520 S. Magnolia Ave.
Orlando, FL   32801
Phone:  407-843-5120 Ext. 3160

Email:  [email-masked]   
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Colin Alston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:46:14 +0200

Rob Wurster wrote:

> To Whom It May Concern,
> I am new to this so I will make it brief.  The problem concerns spam 
> relay databases currently operating on the web.  I find no problem 
> with their intended purpose but I do have a problem with some abuses 
> that are occurring by an organization known as SORBS (i.e., 
> dnsbl.sorbs.net.)  We have been put into their database and delisted 
> on numerous instances based on the fact that our router was 
> hijacked over one year ago as a spam relay.  Granted we were in error 
> but the problem has been fixed.  However, as stated above, we continue 
> to become listed in their database.  This apparently is from residual 
> effects from the initial listing.
> Conclusively, I find a need to help them rid their servers of 
> redundant and erroneous listings.  How this is possible I do not know 
> but would like to share my experience and make the problem known.
>  
> Thank you for your time,

I don't think there is really a problem with these lists, for a start 
one shouldn't land up in them. I feel the fault may lie more with people 
who are so trusting of these black lists that they simply deffer all 
messages completely rather than tagging them.

My question to add to that though, is the method these black lists are 
using to collect their information - is it by spam that is actually 
received via these relays? Surely its possible to forge headers. Also, 
do they check post delivery when looking for open relays? If a server 
accepts a mail (and does not return a relay denied error), does not mean 
that it actually delivered the message (even if this is a bad way to run 
things). Some black listing services border on abuse - Yandex to name 
one, we have had to have firewalled by our upstream many times because 
their proxy checker results in a massive port scan storm (which they deny).

Should there be some policy set down on the behavior of black lists (or 
is there already?).

Regards,

-- 
Colin Alston <[email-masked]>
Network Operations
Slipgate Team
http://www.slipgate.za.net/

Desk no. +27 031 2615410
Cell no. +27 072 4665153