Spam retribution

T i m wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I've ever seen any spam on the many Yahoo groups I use
> (most of which are private / invitation anyway and new members are
> moderated) but my Yahoo group mail was still 'bounced'?
>

If NTL are using Spamhaus then its because Yahoo Groups servers have
been used to send spam to spamtraps or a well known spamming group has
moved in. Its not always obvious which servers have been used to send
the spam unless you parse the message to identify them so you would not
necessarily see it as spam from Yahoo Groups. OTOH there is no getting
away from it being real spam if it has been sent to spamtraps which are
clean addresses that have never been subscribed to anything.

> So is this a blanket 'blacklist' (applies to all Yahoo groups for so
> many hours etc)?

Only to Yahoo Groups using the particular guilty server(s).

>
> Ironically my solution will be to process my mail in such a way so
> that it effectivly bypasses NTL's filters but it will all end up in my
> local inbox after traveling over NTL's network anyway?

Initially your response should be to complain to Yahoo to clean the
spammers from their servers. Its pressure from customers that are
affected by the spam hosting that is used to get the ISP to clean up
their system. Without that most would not bother.

>
> Like why have most of the ISP's (and M$soft) only just woken up to the
> problem and started filtering and offering free AV / FW / ASpam
> software when most of us have had such in place for ages?
>

Firewalls and AV do nothing to stop spam, only the potential impact of
spam content such as viruses on your computer. Very few people run
antispam software although Mozilla Thunderbird has had spam filtering
built in for some time. But spam is best filtered at the server, not
the recipient's computer and most of it uses the SBLs of people like
Spamhaus and Spamcop.

> I have no problem with them using any system that actually *filters*
> genuine spam, not cuts off a lot of my legitimate mail?
>

You are in a minority of their customers as they see it. The answer is
to either accept it with the workarounds or find yourself another ISP
who is more flexible/intelligent in applying spam filters while adding
to the pressure on Yahoo to clean themselves up better. My ISP for
example gives me complete control over what server side spam filtering
is applied to each e-mail account and what is done with identified spam
- but it costs more than NTL does.

But if the spam filters on the internet came off today you would pretty
soon be pleading for them to be put back as the torrent of spam started
clogging up your inbox.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> Spamcop is a different kind of list. It reacts fast (sometimes within
> minutes) because it is updated directly from spam reports, without
> confirmation as to the nature of the spam-relay mechanism. As such,
> it generates short-term blacklistings, without immediate right of
> appeal, for IPs which are otherwise bona fide. Using Spamcop as an
> unconfirmed rejection criterion can, in our experience, result in
> rejection of mail from bona fide MTAs (e.g mailing list servers).
>

That is not quite how it works as I understand it. Spamcop blocklists
are compiled on two bases - spam sent to spamtraps which is identical to
Spamhaus and reports from SpamCop users. A single user report will not
cause you to be blacklisted - if you look they are almost all spamtrap
guilty as well - and the reports are weighted according to the reporting
record of the reporter inter alia. So its difficult for an individual
get a non-spammer blacklisted through forgetfulness or deliberately and
you can appeal to the Deputies on SpamCop if the listing is wrong.

>
>> OTOH I don't think they do pre-emptive listings as Spamhaus do.
>
> Define "pre-emptive".

Pre-emptive means they will block it before any evidence of sending spam
has been gathered based on one of the ROKSO's moving in.

>
> Spamhaus is very different - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml
>
> Your claim that Spamcop "provides an SBL/XBL service" can IMHO only
> cause confusion.
>

SBL is a Spam Block List and XBL is an eXploits Block List. Spamhaus
has them separate, Spamcop combines them into one, the SCBL (SpamCop
Block List). Its still a block list of spam and exploits - what's
confusing about that? The only difference is the way they generate the
lists. It would be a bit pointless both offering identical lists given
both are free. The whole idea is you have a choice of the two.


>
>> In the end you (don't) pay your money and make your choice.
>
> Quite. And reading the list's own statement of policy is surely part
> of that choice.
>

Isn't that obvious? Any list will have to choose between high
filtration with some false positives or low false positives with more
spam getting through. With two lists you (if you run your own domain)
or your ISP gets to choose.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Tony Raven wrote:

> > Define "pre-emptive".
>
> Pre-emptive means they will block it before any evidence of sending
> spam has been gathered based on one of the ROKSO's moving in.

AIUI their policy is to blacklist ISPs who host ROKSOs: they don't
blacklist *until* the ROKSOs have actually moved in, so in that sense
they are *not* pre-emptive. Their policy, for that particular list,
doesn't say anything about being based on actual spam reports, so it
makes no sense to discuss whether they blacklist before or after spam
reports are received. I can only repeat that readers need to read and
understand the policy of the list(s) that they intend to use.

> > Your claim that Spamcop "provides an SBL/XBL service" can IMHO
> > only cause confusion.
>
> SBL is a Spam Block List and XBL is an eXploits Block List.

In normal usage of these terms, SBL is *the* Spamhaus Block List, and
XBL is *the* Spamhaus Exploits Block List. Spamcop makes no claim to
be "a" list of either type - it calls itself the SCBL, and its listing
policy is very different from the SBL and XBL lists which you are
attempting, wrongly IMHO, to associate with it.

I say again, your use of the conventionally-accepted names of specific
Spamhaus lists as if those names might denote generic kinds of
antispam block list can IMHO only cause confusion. The accepted
generic term for a DNS-based blocklist is "DNSBL".

> Spamhaus has them separate,

Spamhaus indeed supports two different DNSBL lists, *the* SBL and
*the* XBL. Spamcop supports neither of those: it supports *the* SCBL
list, with a very different listing policy.

> Spamcop combines them into one, the SCBL (SpamCop Block List).
> It[']s still a block list of spam and exploits - what's confusing
> about that?

See above.

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:28:54 +0000, Tony Raven <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure I've ever seen any spam on the many Yahoo groups I use
>> (most of which are private / invitation anyway and new members are
>> moderated) but my Yahoo group mail was still 'bounced'?
>>
>
>If NTL are using Spamhaus then its because Yahoo Groups servers have
>been used to send spam to spamtraps or a well known spamming group has
>moved in.

Ok ..

>Its not aways obvious which servers have been used to send
>the spam unless you parse the message to identify them so you would not
>necessarily see it as spam from Yahoo Groups. OTOH there is no getting
>away from it being real spam if it has been sent to spamtraps which are
>clean addresses that have never been subscribed to anything.

Ok ..
>
>> So is this a blanket 'blacklist' (applies to all Yahoo groups for so
>> many hours etc)?
>
>Only to Yahoo Groups using the particular guilty server(s).

So if I say subscribed to 20 Yahoo groups it might be pot luck which
groups I loose?
>
>>
>> Ironically my solution will be to process my mail in such a way so
>> that it effectivly bypasses NTL's filters but it will all end up in my
>> local inbox after traveling over NTL's network anyway?
>
>Initially your response should be to complain to Yahoo to clean the
>spammers from their servers.

Well, as I mentioned I can't remember suffering *much* spam from the
Groups I have subscribed to. I get much more from the newsgroups. I
did email Yahoo but as expected heard nothing.

>Its pressure from customers that are
>affected by the spam hosting that is used to get the ISP to clean up
>their system. Without that most would not bother.

Out of interest why have NTL (and others no doubt) only *just* started
to bother?

>
>>
>> Like why have most of the ISP's (and M$soft) only just woken up to the
>> problem and started filtering and offering free AV / FW / ASpam
>> software when most of us have had such in place for ages?
>>
>
>Firewalls and AV do nothing to stop spam,

(I didn't mean to suggest they did .. just that they have only just
started offering us software to deal with it?) ;-(

>only the potential impact of
>spam content such as viruses on your computer. Very few people run
>antispam software

Every PC I come across does when I finish with it ;-)

although Mozilla Thunderbird

And I was using Netscape Messenger before that .. ;-)

>has had spam filtering
>built in for some time. But spam is best filtered at the server, not
>the recipient's computer and most of it uses the SBLs of people like
>Spamhaus and Spamcop.

Fine, *if* it's a choice and / or if I can configure it?
>
>> I have no problem with them using any system that actually *filters*
>> genuine spam, not cuts off a lot of my legitimate mail?
>>
>
>You are in a minority of their customers as they see it.

Judjing by the number of friends_and_family's PC's that are often
covered in the stuff I would have to agree ;-(

>The answer is
>to either accept it with the workarounds or find yourself another ISP
>who is more flexible/intelligent in applying spam filters while adding
>to the pressure on Yahoo to clean themselves up better.

The big issue there is the loss of the e-mail address I've had for
years .. ;-(

My ISP for
>example gives me complete control over what server side spam filtering
>is applied to each e-mail account and what is done with identified spam
>- but it costs more than NTL does.

I can guarantee it's costing more than mine does at the moment!
>
>But if the spam filters on the internet came off today you would pretty
>soon be pleading for them to be put back as the torrent of spam started
>clogging up your inbox.

Nope, I'd carry on happily dealing with it myself as I have done for
years as opposed to keep missing all sorts of messages like I am now.
I'm not saying something shouldn't be done about spam but in the real
world 'blanket' solutions rarely work to the satisfaction of everyone?

So, because of the inability of the majority to deal with 'real world'
problems themselves they apply a blanket solution that simply kills
everything, (well, you know what I mean <g>) like shooting a cancer
sufferer as a 'cure' ?

As my Dad used to say .. "most of the problems in this world aren't
caused by the nasty people but the nice people trying to help" ..?

I'm a grownup, give me ALL my emails please! ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

T i m wrote:
>
> The big issue there is the loss of the e-mail address I've had for
> years .. ;-(
>

With the low cost these days it's worth registering your own domain.
Then you can port your website and e-mail address to whichever ISP is
best at the moment and always maintain the same address and URL's.
You'd need to make a one time change but it would be worth it for the
freedom it would give you to change ISP's whenever you want.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 03:21:31 GMT, in uk.telecom.broadband , T i m
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:50:44 GMT, Mark McIntyre
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>I agree, and as much as anything because it filters my mail for me,
>>before it gets to and fills up my inbox.
>
>But NTL offer a user configurable spam fiter and I'm happy with that.
>I chose 'mark suspected spam as such and forward to me to make the
>final decision" .. (you would probably choose 'delete suspected spam'

I bin all suspected spam as I do not want it anywhere near my system.
No risk then of a new virus / bot methodology getting through my own
scanners.

>So is this a blanket 'blacklist' (applies to all Yahoo groups for so
>many hours etc)?

It most likely applies to all mail originating from a specific yahoo
mailserver, for a specific period of time eg 1 day.

>Like why have most of the ISP's (and M$soft) only just woken up to the
>problem and started filtering and offering free AV / FW / ASpam
>software when most of us have had such in place for ages?

Because until recently therre was no financial or legal pressure on
them to do so....
Mark McIntyre
--

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 19:15:34 GMT, in uk.telecom.broadband , T i m
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:28:54 +0000, Tony Raven <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>Initially your response should be to complain to Yahoo to clean the
>>spammers from their servers.
>
>Well, as I mentioned I can't remember suffering *much* spam from the
>Groups I have subscribed to. I get much more from the newsgroups. I
>did email Yahoo but as expected heard nothing.

Its not the groups that originate the spam, its other yahoo users who
are sending mail via the same mailserver as the group software uses to
forward messages to group members.
Mark McIntyre
--

Joe Soap <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In response to what Ian Stirling <(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
> news:43b57648$0$27206$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Joe Soap <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> In response to what Bob Eager <(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
>>> news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>>> I have selected some that are obviously not spoofed, there is no
>>>>> point asking me to respond to non-genuine addies. Hundreds of
>>>>> others I can do nothing about.
>>>>
>>>> 'obviously not spoofed' - by what criteria?
>>>
>>> By the criteria that I applied, of course. What's it matter to you?
>>
>> If he's like me, it's because I've had several annoying idiots get
>> very irate about mail that `I'd` sent them, that 'obviously wasn't
>> spoofed.'
>>
>> It was of course.
>> At one point I had a hundred thousand bounces land in my inbox from
>> mail `I'd` sent.
>
> What do you want? Sympathy? Take more care of your setup, don't open
> attachments. It's pillocks like you that are causing a lot of the problem.

No, given a free choice, I'd like a sanity test as a requirement of
using the internet.

And, fuckwit, the messages had never been sent by my computer.
The address placed on them by the spammer was mine.

At one point I was recieving 6% of demons entire numbers of emails.

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 03:21:31 GMT, T i m wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:50:44 GMT, Mark McIntyre
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>I agree, and as much as anything because it filters my mail for me,
>>before it gets to and fills up my inbox.
>
> But NTL offer a user configurable spam fiter and I'm happy with that.
> I chose 'mark suspected spam as such and forward to me to make the
> final decision" .. (you would probably choose 'delete suspected spam'
> so it wouldn't fill up your mailbox) there was (is) no option to allow
> through what they had blacklisted?
>
> I'm not sure I've ever seen any spam on the many Yahoo groups I use
> (most of which are private / invitation anyway and new members are
> moderated) but my Yahoo group mail was still 'bounced'?
>
> So is this a blanket 'blacklist' (applies to all Yahoo groups for so
> many hours etc)?
>
> Ironically my solution will be to process my mail in such a way so
> that it effectivly bypasses NTL's filters but it will all end up in my
> local inbox after traveling over NTL's network anyway?
>
> Like why have most of the ISP's (and M$soft) only just woken up to the
> problem and started filtering and offering free AV / FW / ASpam
> software when most of us have had such in place for ages?
>
> I have no problem with them using any system that actually *filters*
> genuine spam, not cuts off a lot of my legitimate mail?
>
> All the best ..
>
> T i m

I've moved away from ntl servers to receive mail. Moved to www.spamcop.net as
it's only $30USD a year for a spam free account. Spam is held for inspection and
not deleted like ntl. Plus you can have the added satisfaction of reporting them
(for what good it does) - although I did have an irate marketing guy e-mail me
back about a spam report I made. I replied to him with a copy to his MD.. lol