>It would be nice if APEWS "showed their work" the way SPEWS did. For
>instance 50 UCEPROTECT listings is hard to square with "thousands of
>spambots".

>Given the past history of Primus,( at best "empty hat") soothing
>words from one of their managers are not likely to convince hard
>core spammer-fighters such as the keepers of APEWS.

>If you are really, really concerned about the over-wide escalation
>size, consider contacting IANA and the various IP number registries
>about making a suitable facility available for determining
>allocation that *can* be access by automated means, in addition to
>the human-only WHOIS system.

>I already refuse email from any host without a valid rDNS. When I find
>a network I want to block in whole, what I do is replace their rDNS by
>overriding the NS records for their in-addr.arpa delegation in my DNS
>cache server. It breaks their rDNS and all email from that whole network
>is no longer accepted.

> But do they also bloat the rDNS delegation space with distinct authoritative
> servers for different /24's? That's what I use these days to finds the
> boundaries of address allocation, and "identify" who owns what space in a
> canonical way (approximately so, based on the name server delegated to).

> If mail servers get rDNS delegation blocking implemented, either in the
> mail server if it does the recursion itself, or in DNS, then a blacklist
> could be published with a list of rDNS delegation servers to block. It
> would certainly be a very aggressive method since it blocks whole ISPs
> all at once, or at least major chunks of it if they use more than one set
> of rDNS name servers.

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:35:35 +0000, Herb Oxley wrote:
>

>> iPrimus Network Abuse iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>>> Dear Apews,
>>> I'm writing in regards to your blacklisting of one of our /16's namely
>>> 203.134.0.0/16 (E-57606)

>> You might want to review the UCEPROTECT listings for that /16; currently
>> there are 50 IPAs listed because they've sent spam to UCEPROTECT spamtraps
>> within the past 7 days.
>>
>> For your convenience I've pasted them to the end of this post. Please do
>> note I have no official connection to UCEPROTECT or "Admins.ws".
>>
>> Be aware not that many people send spam complaints these days; most have
>> found the time involved to be a pure waste.
>>
>> And do keep in mind, whilst you profess to be Doing All The Right Things
>> to control the amount of spam emitted from iPrimus net space, there are
>> those in the community with long memories - back when people did send ...

> Why can no-one distinguish between these APNIC assignments?

> iPrimus Network Abuse iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>> Dear Apews,

>

>> I'm writing in regards to your blacklisting of one of our /16's namely
>> 203.134.0.0/16 (E-57606)

>
> You might want to review...

>It would make me very happy if you could use your spamtrapping system
>to send automated emails telling me when any IP's in my network are
>Spamming your traps.

> According to Matthew Sullivan sorbs.net>:
>

>> For those looking for a DUL you are performing a disservice pointing
>> them at the PBL. You should be pointing them at the SORBS DUHL or the
>> NJABL DUL.

>
> You are aware that the NJABL DUL isn't a DUL (by your definition of
> DUL) anymore, aren't you?
>
> It's a mirror of the PBL now.