[SpamCop-List] Re: Open Proxy SCBL Rules

[John E. Malmberg]

Bert Driehuis wrote:
>> another company, so its unclear (at least to me) whether their methods 
>> are consistent across both company's servers. Their reply was terse:
>>
>>> Currently, we use a number of RBL's:
>>>
>>> sbl.spamhaus.org
>>> bl.spamcop.net
>>> dnsbl.njabl.org
>>> list.dsbl.org
>>> relays.ordb.org
>>> dynablock.njabl.org
>>> dnsbl.sorbs.net
>>> cbl.abuseat.org

Request that they change sbl.spamhaus.org entry to sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org 
as it looks up sbl.spamhaus.org, opm.blitzed.org, and cbl.abuseat.org 
all in one query.

Then they can block their separate query of the cbl.abuseat.org.

> 
> That's a pretty comprehensive list. I'd personally throw in the PDL 
> because I believe dynablock isn't as comprehensive as it used to be, but 
> other than that it is a sane setup for most users. The list is certainly 
> more aggressive than I could stomach, if I don my support-role hat.

In the spot tests that I have done on the spam that gets through, the 
PDL was missing quite a few well known dynamic pools, pretty much the 
same ones that were missing from maps.

The dynablock.njabl.org seemed to be much better than either of those 
two, but is still letting through some DHCP ranges.

The SORBS DHUL seems to be the most complete.
> 
> It is impossible to win the war on spam and still leave the US a 
> democracy. If you have spare cycles, get your elected representative off 
> his proverbial to make sure that law enforcement does their job. Last I 
> checked, computer breakins were illegal in the US and the vast majority 
> of spam comes from a small number of people in the US breaking US law to 
> deliver spam to the tune of around $10bn damages per annum. If I were a 
> politician I'd see an opportunity there.

The enforced laws need to explicitly require that ISP's take action with 
in one business day after being notified of criminal activity on their 
network, and that they are still liable if they did not get notified in 
a timely manor because either their abuse e-mail box was not functional 
or the person reading it was too far behind.

When an ISP finds that some other major ISPs are refusing e-mail from 
them because of their lack of action to abuse complaints, they seem to 
be able to fix the problems with lightning speed, no matter how big the 
problem is.  So there is plenty of public evidence that having the above 
legal requirement is not too much of a burden.

-John
wb8tyw at qsl.network
Personal Opinion Only