|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: AlexAlex
Date: Jun 3, 2007 23:21
Good Evening,
I could use some help. Like others' messages I have read, My IP
( 68.224.171.136) has been listed by APEWS. I found out thanks my DNS
service at dnsstuff.com.
We are a four person PR agency with only those four client computers
on our server at beauty-pr.com and I am the admin of the network. I am
the only one here who uses the Gammadyne software we use to send out
email news releases to our list of industry beauty editors (none of
who would be complaining about it) so I am at a bit of loss to figure
out what has happened. I have been delivering our news releases this
way for a number of years now and this is the first incident like
this.
There are about 70 or so editors in the beauty industry we communicate
with this way with fairly regularly. 99%% of them at company domains
with only 6-7 freelance beauty writers who use either Yahoo mail,
Gmail or AOL. That is the breadth and depth of the bulk emailing from
our office. Everything else goes out our regular Outlook 2003 clients.
|
| Show full article (2.32Kb) |
|
| |
2 Comments |
|
  |
Author: rafibhrafibh
Date: Jun 3, 2007 22:21
On Jun 1, 4:03 pm, John Doe gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>
>> Does anyone part of me noticed that tqmcube.com doesn't take care of
>> opened ticket's since Mar2003?
>
>> {snip}
>
>> [Remove] 82.80.89.123
>> [Remove] 62.219.209.120
>> [Remove] 62.219.237.252
>> [Remove] 212.179.23.130
>
> A few points to consider:
>
> 1) Those are all from 2007, not 2003. ...
|
| Show full article (2.10Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: SethSeth
Date: Jun 3, 2007 15:14
>If there were a good alternative to my AT&T DSL available, I would
>very seriously consider it.
Apparently, in your evalutation of "goodness", you don't give much
weight to "ability to have email accepted". That's your choice.
>No, I don't use DNSBLs that take such a blunt approach without
>allowing innocent server owners caught in the collateral damage to
>request exclusions for their IPs.
Nobody is obligated to use your criteria for selecting spam-blocking
methods when dealing with mail from you. They use their own decisions
in all cases.
>> And what of those who feel that since AT&T is doing so little to stop or
>> reduce spam, that they should de-peer the AT&T network entirely?
>
>That doesn't seem realistic.
There are those who have done it, hence it's quite realistic. It may
be foolish, but there's no lack of foolishness in the world (or on the
net).
|
| Show full article (1.78Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: SethSeth
Date: Jun 3, 2007 12:34
>On May 23, 5:23 am, Phil Howard wrote:
>>
>> Which internet will you connect to?
>
>The Internet is so established and pervasive that it would be a LONG
>time before all useful providers of content, correspondents, etc. had
>moved over to Internet 2.
That doesn't matter; non-abusive stuff will be gatewayed.
> Therefore I would have to retain my
>connection to Internet 1 despite the risk of getting some spam.
But you don't need to keep it for email.
> If
>there were enough useful content only available on Internet 2, I would
>connect to it as well, despite the stated penalties for "leakage" from
>Internet 1 to 2. (Is that only leakage of spam, or *any* content?
It would be leakage of any _abusive_ content. DoS attacks, worms,
viruses, etc. are bad. Funny pictures of cats with signs aren't.
|
| Show full article (2.17Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
Date: Jun 2, 2007 22:59
Is it just me in one of my bad moods, or is "C-82" popping up in a wide
variety of places (NANABl, NANAE, SPAM-L (not so sure about that),
elsewhere?
Different "authors", different mail hosts.
What's up with that?
And why does it look like the request queue traffic seems high here?
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: hostdonehostdone
Date: Jun 1, 2007 09:31
Hi
I got listed in APEWS ip 204.13.153.37 and all range 204.13.153.0/24
Entry matching your Query: E-162980
204.13.153.0/24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE: C-82
IP space of "hot" UCE/UBE operations per NANAS, NANAE, UCEtraps &
published statistics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Reason:
per NANAS, NANAE, spamtraps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know what know what is that reason means ? and How can I fix
it?
thanks
|
| Show full article (0.85Kb) |
|
2 Comments |
|
  |
Author: lordakoalordakoa
Date: May 31, 2007 18:10
My IP address/range is being listed by APEWS but I'm not a spammer.
Does anyone have any idea why I am being blocked, how I can fix this
and keep this from happening again?
206.51.237.247
206.51.237.248
|
| |
|
3 Comments |
|
  |
Author: alex.wiederholdalex.wiederhold
Date: May 31, 2007 18:10
Hi
I work for a company that sends out mail to their customers like most
companies I would imagine. The majority of our communication in the
office, with suppliers and customers is based on email. Last week we
learned that apparently someone had used our domain (not sure if I
should mention it here, can I?) in a "mass mailing" and we were listed
by SpamCop. As a result we also appeared in AbuseButler. The issue was
quickly resolved, and SpamCop de-listed us, as did AbuseButler. The
way I understand it AbuseButler is only an aggregated list which got
our domain/IP from SpamCop.
Well, now that we are off those lists we found our IP now listed in
APEWS. I cannot see any way on the website to deal with this issue
other than posting it here. So my question would be: how can we be
sure to get off the APEWS list, too?
Thanks for your help
Alex
|
| Show full article (1.10Kb) |
|
4 Comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: Shmuel (Seymour J.) MetzShmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Date: May 31, 2007 11:01
>A little bird told me that APEWS might be returning different codes
>depending on what the actual issue with the IP is... our tool may
>actually be a little dense and not recognizing all the return codes.
>It's possible that it think any response other than the standard
>'nameserver' return is 'listed'.
What type of RR are you getting back from the query and what does it
contain?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, truly insane Spews puppet
< http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive
E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact
me. Do not reply to spamtrap@ library.lspace.org
|
| Show full article (1.03Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|