news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/ Posts for news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting Tue, 13 May 2008 04:09:15 PDT http://www.nnseek.com/ http://www.nnseek.com/ http://www.nnseek.com/img/64.png 64 64 NNSeek <![CDATA[BACKSCATTERER Ip 82.145.16.136 is listed, the server DO NOT BOUNCE, why we are in the list?]]> http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/backscatterer_ip_82_145_16_136_is_listed_the_server_233281565t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/backscatterer_ip_82_145_16_136_is_listed_the_server_233281565t.html http://www.teligo.it/ The http://www.backscatterer.org/index.php?target=backscatter test: HELO forged.domain.name MAIL FROM: victim@victimdomain.tld RCPT TO: NoSuchUser@yourcompany.tld 550 User unknown is OK. Can you please send me details about the motivation of our listing, I want to discover and fix this abuse. Thank you Carlo -- Comments posted to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting are solely the responsibility of their author. Please read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
  Posted In: news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting   4 Comments   Reply

]]> Tue, 13 May 2008 04:09:15 PDT <![CDATA[APEWS: E-217979]]> http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/apews_e_217979_231497245t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/apews_e_217979_231497245t.html http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ip4r.ch?ip=209.31.62.11 gives me this page: http://www.aspews.org/?ip=209.31.62.11 which has an OLD message ( August 2007 ). That first lookup doesn't check apews.org ( dunno why not ). ~~~~~~~ Entry matching your Query: E-217979 209.31.0.0/16 CASE: C-130 One or more bots in ASN / CIDR, unprofessional / negligent owner Special Reason: Only the ASN/CIDR owner can solve this listing by actioning FAQ 42 apews.org SHUTDOWN BOTS, ZOMBIES, NET ABUSE History: Entry created 2007-06-25 ~~~~~~~~ I have contacted XO and they claim there's nothing they can do. This message is OLD and IMHO it should have "gone away by now." Heck, it's not even our netblock! What can I do to resolve this? ======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: This doesn't look like a "delisting request," per se, and the implication that Y! may be using APEWS data is intriguing, to say the least, so I'll let it through. -- Comments posted to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting are solely the responsibility of their author. Please read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
  Posted In: news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting   1 Comment   Reply

]]> Tue, 06 May 2008 04:57:45 PDT <![CDATA[confused.]]> http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/confused_231421213t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/confused_231421213t.html XO.com. DNSstuff still has us on the aspews list: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ip4r.ch?ip=209.31.62.11 Aspews has us too: http://www.aspews.org/?ip=209.31.62.11 But the listing on APEWS is gone. According to the ASPEWS listing, we're blocked because the entire 209.31/16 network is blocked. * 209.63.208.0/23 * 209.63.193.0/24 * 209.63.194.0/24 * 209.63.184.0/22 * 209.63.169.0/24 * 209.63.170.0/24 * 209.63.171.0/24 * 209.63.172.0/24 * 67.107.208.0/24 * 209.31.0.0/16 * 208.176.225.0/27 I've tried talking to the technicians at XO. I hate to call other techs clueless, but they encouraged me to talk to "whomever isn't accepting our email" and have them whitelist us, rather then them fix whatever the problem was. So the question I'm *trying* to ask is... what can I do about the listing in aspews, aside from leaving XO ( we have a contract for another 18 months or so ). And thus, how can I help ensure that our email will be accepted. -- Comments posted to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting are solely the responsibility of their author. Please read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
  Posted In: news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting   2 Comments   Reply

]]> Mon, 05 May 2008 21:39:26 PDT <![CDATA[Blocklist etc due to new class c]]> http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/blocklist_etc_due_to_new_class_c_230575389t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/blocklist_etc_due_to_new_class_c_230575389t.html news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting are solely the responsibility of their author. Please read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
  Posted In: news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting   3 Comments   Reply

]]> Thu, 01 May 2008 19:34:21 PDT <![CDATA[UCEPROTECT - I am listed again - why?]]> http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/uceprotect_i_am_listed_again_why_228637725t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/uceprotect_i_am_listed_again_why_228637725t.html news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting are solely the responsibility of their author. Please read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
  Posted In: news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting   4 Comments   Reply

]]> Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:05:50 PDT <![CDATA[backscatterer.org not listing 0/0]]> http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/backscatterer_org_not_listing_0_0_228311581t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/backscatterer_org_not_listing_0_0_228311581t.html news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting are solely the responsibility of their author. Please read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
  Posted In: news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting   no comments   Reply

]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:18:50 PDT <![CDATA[backscatterer.org lists 0/0]]> http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/backscatterer_org_lists_0_0_228311325t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/backscatterer_org_lists_0_0_228311325t.html news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting are solely the responsibility of their author. Please read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
  Posted In: news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting   1 Comment   Reply

]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:18:12 PDT <![CDATA[Which DNSBL give the least false positives?]]> http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/which_dnsbl_give_the_least_false_positives_226201117t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/which_dnsbl_give_the_least_false_positives_226201117t.html list.dnswl.org whitelist), I'll have to view every letter which makes through including all false negatives, so scoring like SpamAssassin is useless for me. I suppose that list.dsbl.org should be fairly safe regarding false positives, but AFAIK most spam nowadays comes from zombied M$ on dynamic IP-addresses, so I'd like to use a DUL which doesn't list wholesale /24 blocks of IPs without PTR (some small Russian ISP cannot control reverse DNS of allocated to them blocks; some can but don't - non-spam letters from their users are as critically important for me as from users of other ISP). I know to not use APEWS, fiveten, TQMCube, spamcannibal, UCEprotect, PSBL (because it can be backscatter-triggered), SORBS (may be except SORBSDUL), perhaps Spamcop too. I'm afraid to use zen.spamhaus.org. Or can it be trusted? Or better sbl? Or sbl-xbl? Or which? Please advise. Thanks, -- Lena()lena.kiev.ua -- Comments posted to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting are solely the responsibility of their author. Please read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
  Posted In: news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting   9 Comments   Reply

]]> Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:18:27 PDT <![CDATA[ASPEWS: 208.76.96.0/20 does not belong to The ColoSite, LLC]]> http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/aspews_208_76_96_0_20_does_not_belong_to_the_colosite_225280285t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/aspews_208_76_96_0_20_does_not_belong_to_the_colosite_225280285t.html news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting are solely the responsibility of their author. Please read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
  Posted In: news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting   no comments   Reply

]]> Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:17:24 PDT <![CDATA[Backscatter]]> http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/backscatter_224516125t.html http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting/backscatter_224516125t.html backscatter.org but when I check for what we have done to merit the blocking I find that we are following the rules set out by backscatter.org already. I do not generate any backscatter, we have the proper SMTP dialog when we connect to the server. I have checked for the Sender callouts and we have the proper settings, main.cf.default:disable_vrfy_command = no Don't know what else to verify. Need to get off this list. Any insights or previous experience would help. Jp -- Comments posted to news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting are solely the responsibility of their author. Please read the news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting FAQ at http://www.blocklisting.com/faq.html before posting.
  Posted In: news.admin.netabuse.blocklisting   10 Comments   Reply

]]> Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:05:25 PDT