Bei der Gruppe, für die Sie eine Mitteilung verfassen, handelt es sich um eine Usenet-Gruppe. Wenn Sie in dieser Gruppe Nachrichten posten, ist Ihre E-Mail-Adresse für jeden im Internet sichtbar
Entry matching your Query: E-273721 194.181.0.0/16 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- CASE: C-130 One or more bots in ASN / CIDR, unprofessional / negligent owner --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
> Entry matching your Query: E-273721 > 194.181.0.0/16 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- > CASE: C-130 > One or more bots in ASN / CIDR, unprofessional / negligent owner > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Just out of curiosity, is the APEWS listing causing you any real mail deliverability problems or did you only become aware of it because of some blacklist lookup site? If the latter, then I wouldn't worry about the listing at all. If the former, please do tell.
-- Roy Bixler <rcbix...@nyx.net> The price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that someday they might force their beliefs on us. -- Mario Cuomo
> > Entry matching your Query: E-273721 > > 194.181.0.0/16 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- > > CASE: C-130 > > One or more bots in ASN / CIDR, unprofessional / negligent owner > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
> Just out of curiosity, is the APEWS listing causing you any real mail > deliverability problems or did you only become aware of it because of some > blacklist lookup site? If the latter, then I wouldn't worry about the > listing at all. If the former, please do tell.
> -- > Roy Bixler <rcbix...@nyx.net> > The price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that someday > they might force their beliefs on us. > -- Mario Cuomo
Some poeple receive NDR. When they send an e-mail.
wkr...@gmail.com wrote: > Thanks, our address are not here, and we informed NASK about this > problem.
based on your NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.181.192.12 I assume you're admin of 194.181.192.0/24 ?
On 20090107 there was 194.181.192.3 listed in CBL On 20090115 there were 194.181.192.3 194.181.192.2 listed in CBL On 2009-01-23 and today there were none of these listed.
whois |grep abuse gives contact to nask.pl - there go all the reports about spam coming from /16. Maybe you could force nask to change whois record to contain your abuse@ address and you'll receive spam reports about your /24 directly? Or maybe you should register your IPs at spamcop?
You shouldn't rely on nask. They are probably just /dev/nulling abuse reports while taking breaks from playing quake (or while respawning). Otherwise you should be informed about spam problems coming from your network /24
> Some poeple receive NDR. When they send an e-mail.
And in this NDR there is info saying that APEWS is the problem? Have you seen such NDR? Maybe you shouldn't force yourself to remove your IPs from RBL which has no impact on your mail?
-- Regards Lemat The Internet does not need law enforcement, it only needs few good sysadmins with cojones.
>> Just out of curiosity, is the APEWS listing causing you any real mail >> deliverability problems or did you only become aware of it because of >> some blacklist lookup site? If the latter, then I wouldn't worry about >> the listing at all. If the former, please do tell.
> Some poeple receive NDR. When they send an e-mail.
Do the NDRs refer to APEWS as the reason for rejection?
-- Roy Bixler <rcbix...@nyx.net> The price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that someday they might force their beliefs on us. -- Mario Cuomo
> >> Just out of curiosity, is the APEWS listing causing you any real mail > >> deliverability problems or did you only become aware of it because of > >> some blacklist lookup site? If the latter, then I wouldn't worry about > >> the listing at all. If the former, please do tell.
> > Some poeple receive NDR. When they send an e-mail.
> Do the NDRs refer to APEWS as the reason for rejection?
If they do it will be the 2nd one in APEWS existence. I wonder if that one lone guy in Texas is still using APEWS?
wkr...@gmail.com wrote: > On 3 Lut, 15:34, stinky <stee...@gmail.com> wrote: >> In article >> <01d770ee-6fc9-42f3-adb2-b17033432...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>> wkr...@gmail.com wrote: >>> NOT a SPAMER >>> Entry matching your Query: E-273721 >>> 194.181.0.0/16 >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >>> -- >>> CASE: C-130 >>> One or more bots in ASN / CIDR, unprofessional / negligent owner >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >>> -- >> Are you with NASK? Do you represent NASK?
>> Have the bots been removed?
>> Contact your provider (NASK) and tell them to remove infected computers.
> I'm not from NASK, but I'm administrator of this network.
> We have removed infected computer, and blocked not secure ports.
> I also contacted NASK, but they did'nt response yet.
And they most likely are not going to. You are listed not particularly for something you did, but because of the negligence of your provider. Until they clean up you will be listed.
--
"Pot, thy colour is black, thy material make-up is primarily of iron and thy criminal record is that of soliciting for the purpose of prostitution." - Marc B.
>> >> Just out of curiosity, is the APEWS listing causing you any real mail >> >> deliverability problems or did you only become aware of it because of >> >> some blacklist lookup site? If the latter, then I wouldn't worry about >> >> the listing at all. If the former, please do tell.
>> > Some poeple receive NDR. When they send an e-mail.
>> Do the NDRs refer to APEWS as the reason for rejection?
> If they do it will be the 2nd one in APEWS existence. I wonder if that > one lone guy in Texas is still using APEWS?
APEWS is unfit for "simple/binary blocking". APEWS may be used for selecting "picky mode". e.g. requiring closed loop RDNS and using "more aggressive" DNSBL lists.
-- [pl>en Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : a...@onet.eu : a...@xl.wp.pl And tomorrow will be like today, only more so. -- Isaiah 56:12, New Standard Version
>We have removed infected computer, and blocked not secure ports.
Ohh, so you *did* have an infected computer in your network. One which was presumably comitting network abuse. In other words, the listing is accurate.
On 3 Lut, 17:05, Lemat <#...@lemat.priv.pl> wrote:
> based on your NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.181.192.12 > I assume you're admin of 194.181.192.0/24 ?
Wrong assumption. His netblock is far far smaller.
> whois |grep abuse > gives contact to nask.pl - there go all the reports about spam coming from > /16. Maybe you could force nask to change whois record to contain your > abuse@ address and you'll receive spam reports about your /24 directly?
There was NO reports about his netblock. (for last 6 years)
> You shouldn't rely on nask. They are probably just /dev/nulling abuse > reports while taking breaks from playing quake (or while respawning). > Otherwise you should be informed about spam problems coming from your > network /24
No, we (CERT NASK) are not. We are dealing with every complaint. 194.181.0.0/16 is our client's network - most of them are small ISPs - and we are forwarding reports to them. Sometimes they respond sometimes not...
Regards, Tomasz Pi³at -- CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) Polska / NASK
On Feb 4, 4:58 am, "pon...@gmail.com" <pon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Lut, 17:05, Lemat <#...@lemat.priv.pl> wrote:
> > You shouldn't rely on nask. They are probably just /dev/nulling abuse > > reports while taking breaks from playing quake (or while respawning). > > Otherwise you should be informed about spam problems coming from your > > network /24
> No, we (CERT NASK) are not. We are dealing with every complaint. > 194.181.0.0/16 is our client's network - most of them are small ISPs - > and > we are forwarding reports to them. Sometimes they respond sometimes > not...
YOU have responsibility for your whole network . your responsibility does not end with you saying it is a client's network. you need to stop spam as it is your network space that is your client's network to rest of the net. if you will not do this then the net lists you . that how it works so if your client will not deal with and you will not stop said client from useing your netspace you should be listed. you need to put in your client's contact that they will not spam or they will not be a client of your.
thats what i wish many people will now put your whole net space in there lists and you will not get out ever.
> > based on your NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.181.192.12 > > I assume you're admin of 194.181.192.0/24 ?
> Wrong assumption. His netblock is far far smaller.
> > whois |grep abuse > > gives contact to nask.pl - there go all the reports about spam coming from > > /16. Maybe you could force nask to change whois record to contain your > > abuse@ address and you'll receive spam reports about your /24 directly?
> There was NO reports about his netblock. (for last 6 years)
> > You shouldn't rely on nask. They are probably just /dev/nulling abuse > > reports while taking breaks from playing quake (or while respawning). > > Otherwise you should be informed about spam problems coming from your > > network /24
> No, we (CERT NASK) are not. We are dealing with every complaint. > 194.181.0.0/16 is our client's network - most of them are small ISPs - > and > we are forwarding reports to them. Sometimes they respond sometimes > not...
Then you remain blocked. If they don't respond then cut their lines or suffer blocking. Very simple.
> > based on your NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.181.192.12 > > I assume you're admin of 194.181.192.0/24 ?
> Wrong assumption. His netblock is far far smaller.
> > whois |grep abuse > > gives contact to nask.pl - there go all the reports about spam coming from > > /16. Maybe you could force nask to change whois record to contain your > > abuse@ address and you'll receive spam reports about your /24 directly?
> There was NO reports about his netblock. (for last 6 years)
The days of just blocking a single IP address or small range are over. (see whack-a-mole). Control your networks or become blocked.
Then again, there has been very little evidence that anyone uses APEWS.
I am writing from higgsandsons.co.uk, a law firm in brierley hill We do not know why we may be blacklisted - the only mailshots we send out are to external clients who have requested to be on the mailing list and these mailshots are not sent often.
Could you also check 81.86.23.46 is not listed
Please contact me on alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk to let me know when this has been 'whitelisted;
alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk wrote: > 81.86.23.41 appears to be blacklisted
> I am writing from higgsandsons.co.uk, a law firm in brierley hill > We do not know why we may be blacklisted - the only mailshots we send > out are to external clients who have requested to be on the mailing > list and these mailshots are not sent often.
> Could you also check 81.86.23.46 is not listed
> Please contact me on alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk to let me know when > this has been 'whitelisted;
> Thanks
> Alex Heer
Could *I* Check??? Let you know?? To whom exactly were you thinking you sent email to? Who told you your IP was listed in APEWS? Why do you think that being listed there matters?
--
"Pot, thy colour is black, thy material make-up is primarily of iron and thy criminal record is that of soliciting for the purpose of prostitution." - Marc B.
WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote: > alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk wrote: >> Please contact me on alex.h...@higgsandsons.co.uk to let me know when >> this has been 'whitelisted; > Could *I* Check??? Let you know?? To whom exactly were you > thinking you sent email to? Who told you your IP was listed in APEWS? > Why do you think that being listed there matters?
And why should Usenet be treated as a write-only medium? (Aimed at the OP, not you, WF.)
>No, we (CERT NASK) are not. We are dealing with every complaint. >194.181.0.0/16 is our client's network - most of them are small ISPs - >and >we are forwarding reports to them. Sometimes they respond sometimes >not...
My 2 cents...
I'm not sure who "respond" refers to. Is that to you or to the original spam reporter?
There is a problem with small ISPs. Sometimes they are incompentent. Sometimes they are actually spammers pretending to be an ISP.
I think you should require that your customers respond to you within a reasonable time. If not, you should fix the problem, perhaps by pulling their plug, until they do respond.
-- These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
pon...@gmail.com wrote: > On 4 Lut, 16:14, stinky <stee...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Then you remain blocked. If they don't respond then >> cut their lines or suffer blocking. Very simple.
> We have cut our customers few times, trust me. > But in case of this / 16, the level of spam/reports volume > was too low to escalate and cut their links.
(Shrug)
Apparently the volume is high enough for others to Filter / Reject / Block / null route / ... those sources of abuse.
-- E-Mail Sent to this address <BlackL...@Anitech-Systems.com> will be added to the BlackLists.
In article <91951f83-b951-42a8-b0c4-3860cbf35...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
"pon...@gmail.com" <pon...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 Lut, 16:14, stinky <stee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Then you remain blocked. If they don't respond then cut their lines or > > suffer blocking. Very simple.
> We have cut our customers few times, trust me. But in case of this / > 16, the level of spam/reports volume > was too low to escalate and cut their links.
It might have been too low for you but it could have been high enough to cause a listing. Do you really see any email being blocked due to an APEWS listing?
|
