openrbl.org · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:De-standardize, and make it worthwhile. by mikael · 2008-05-05 02:13 · Score: 1 · on 100 Email Bouncebacks - Welcome to Backscattering

There's already a few mail reputation systems:

Mail Abuse Prevention System

And there's also a generic checklist for all anti-spam ideas:

Anti-Spam Solutions Checklist

DO NOT USE BLARS :o) by juanhf · 2007-01-05 04:11 · Score: 1 · on SORBS - Is There a Better Spam Blacklist?

Whatever you do, DO NOT USE BLARS he runs a pretty mean black list, so bad that he his website probably got pulled or he was forced to pull it

if you happen to be the mail admin i would suggest checking out mxtoolbox.com

Some other zones by Anonymous Coward · 2007-01-04 23:02 · Score: 0 · on SORBS - Is There a Better Spam Blacklist?

http://openrbl.org/client/t/zones.htm

Re:I've run 2 ISP's, starting my third... by sofar · 2005-07-30 04:38 · Score: 1 · on Classed as Spam by Large-Scale Free Email Servers?

not really, his IP is not listed in any important blocks according to openrbl. Mail should get out normally ... unless there's something fisy with his domain name... but the IP itself looks perfectly fine for SMTP usage.

The point of these databases/lists by Anonymous Coward · 2005-04-06 19:42 · Score: 0 · on Should You Trust MAPS?

Firstly, by calling MAPS "out of date, or insecure and flawed" is flawed logic -- if that statement were true, then MAPS just wouldn't get the wide-spread usage that it does. The fact that many SMTP server administrators are using the MAPS database to block known spammers indicates that their criteria for listings is one that these administrators agree with.

Secondly, the MAPS database has criteria that is in many ways similar to other DNSBLs (MAPS is a "DNSBL"), while it also differs greatly from many others. If you take the time to understand even the most popular DNSBLs in use today (see http://www.openrbl.org/ for a short list of approximately 30), then you'll see that the criteria varies widely -- some list only single IPs, some list entire netblocks, some list internet domain names, etc., and then the reasons for being listed and de-listed add even more complexity to any sort of a comparison.

Thirdly, each SMTP server is governed by different policies, and the administrators/owners of those systems are the ones who decide which criteria (or no criteria) is appropriate for reducing/eliminating spam. So to assume that a DNSBL is somehow controlling eMail on the internet is completely incorrect -- it is the SMTP server administrators who are in control of their own systems, and have every right to choose to use "delegation of authority" (and can just as easily stop using a DNSBL). A competent administrator can usually make such policy decisions take effect in a matter of seconds, and is accountable only to the users who pay them for spam-free eMail service.

Anyway, waving a big red flag around in an attempt to gain sympathy from others is always a complete waste of time because DNSBL operators generally have a reputation for not making exceptions to their rules (that's why people tend to trust and rely on them). This is an example of good management (and it's not really suprising because good management skills tend to come from those with a strong sense of clarity; one of the most essential requirements for running a successful DNSBL).

The main point of a DNSBL is to put pressure on ISPs who don't take the spam problem seriously. If your eMail is blocked because your IP address is listed in a DNSBL, then the very best course of action you can take is to demand that your ISP get the listing resolved (and provide a discount until your eMails are no longer blocked), or switch to a better ISP who does take the spam problem seriously (or just put up with it the way it is).

If your ISP directs you to complain to the DNSBL operator, then they're probably just trying to avoid dealing with it themselves. This is the kind of problem that only your ISP can resolve by terminating their spamming customers' accounts, so why should you have to do the dirty work and put your own reputation at risk for their screw-ups?

The fact of life is that as long as there are spammers, there will be spam fighers, and a good number of those spam fighters will operate DNSBLs. Practically all eMail software natively supports DNSBLs these days because customers demand it, and trying to change a DNSBL just because it's inconvenient to you isn't going to help anyone in the long run.

Eventually, the internet will become divided into two factions, the spam-friendly, and the anti-spam, if more people don't fight back (I believe it's already happening to some extent today). Take a look at this article for a more complete view on this slowly-growing split:

Good-Bye to middle-class ISPs
http://www.inter-corporate.com/spam/classes.html

To become a spam-fighter, an excellent place to get involved is in NANAE, a public newsgroup called "news.admin.net-abuse.email" where many spam-fighters (and a few idiots, clowns, stalkers, etc.) post regularly. Many victims of spam (including those who find their eMail blocked) also regularly ask for help, and there are many helpful people t

Re:For example by tsvk · 2004-10-27 06:59 · Score: 1 · on Project Gutenberg Threatened Over PG Australia

The cracks.am domain sure is registered in Armenia. But the www.cracks.am website has an IP address assigned to an ISP in Sealand, not Armenia.

Look it up: http://www.openrbl.org/ip/217/64/35/211.whois.htm.

Re:What is the best way to stop this? by RT+Alec · 2004-06-09 19:55 · Score: 4, Informative · on Russia, China World's Biggest Spammers

ISPs (and any other business that gives a workstation a "real" IP address) need to block egress port 25. Comcast is going to be doing this soon, others should soon follow suit. This plugs the zombies.
IP addresses that continue to send spam will be blacklisted. With the zombies effectively out of the loop this will become easier (albeit never quite perfect).
SPF and other authentication schemes need to be adopted to prevent "spoofing" and so called "Joe jobs".
E-mail providers (including small companies) need to deploy mature e-mail systems for their users. In 1995 it was fine to accept e-mail from anyone on port 25, with no authentication and no encryption. In 2004, remote clients need to have an SSL connection available (both for sending mail and accessing inboxes), and must require authentication before accepting initial mail submission (SMTP+TLS+AUTH). Not only is this more secure, but it also addresses the issues always raised by blocking egress port 25 and deploying SPF.

Once these techniques and practices be come commonplace, it won't matter if spam originates from lawless areas of the world. Existing laws against fraud (and other illegal business practices) will cover the extreme efforts that will be necessary to continue spamming.

Appendix:
SMTP+TLS+AUTH is not that tough, no whining. All modern mail clients support it, on all platforms. There is a little bit of work to do on the server end, but that's what you pay your ISP (or IT department) for:

Re:How to tell? by bigberk · 2004-05-24 13:37 · Score: 5, Informative · on Comcast Thinks About Stopping Zombies

Is there an easy way to tell if your own computer is a zombie spambot?

Yes, there is! If your IP is sending spam, believe me, we will have noticed via our extensive spam traps. Just query your IP at OpenRBL or at dnsstuff to see if you're blocked due to spam received from your IP.

Note that you can also appear on blocklists for various other reasons. So look into why you're blocked. If you're listed on AHBL, CBL, SpamCop, WPBL for example then your host is probably infected.

Spamcop is least of Richter's worries by bigberk · 2004-05-20 16:55 · Score: 1 · on Accused Spammer to Debate SpamCop Founder

I think it's kind of stupid for Richter to sue Spamcop. Scott Richter's "WholesaleBandwidth, Inc." is responsible for a ton of spamming, and he's being appropriately blocked for it. For example, look up 69.6.21.150 at OpenRBL to see just how fscked Richter is. You don't appear on 14 blocklists unless you are a spammer.

Re:More Details by pclinger · 2004-02-25 21:30 · Score: 1 · on Taking Domain Control Back from the Registrar?