On Fri, 2003-08-15 at 02:16, Matt Kettler wrote: > At 01:44 PM 8/14/2003 -0700, Doug Roberts wrote: > >Hi all - > > > >We just set up shop at a co-lo, started firing off mails to customers that > >requested to download our product (a spamassassin-based filter, > >ironically) and discovered that we are the proud owners of part of a class > >C that has been blocked because the previous owners were spammers. We were > >politely alerted to this fact by the Manager of the Outblaze Postmaster > >and Abuse Desk (thanks Suresh!), and he cleared the block on his end promptly. > > > >A short investigation shows us on the Spamhaus block list, and SPEWS > >(http://www.spews.org/html/S1725.html, who seemed to indicate in their FAQ > >that I should plead my case you this community). We've contacted our ISP > >(he.net), but is there anything else I should be doing, or is this an ISP > >thing?
One big question to ask yourself right now. Are the spammers all gone? really gone? not just hiding? You wouldn't want to be paying money every month to a spamlover co-lo and subsidising spammer's connectivity would you? > Well *THIS* community isn't really the place to plead your case about spews > mis-listings. The proper place, per their faq, is > <news:news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting>news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting > and <news:news.admin.net-abuse.email>news.admin.net-abuse.email . This list > is about spamassassin. > > > As for SpamAssassin's use of spews derived lists, well, you can read on the > development lists that spews is likely to be disabled by default in future > versions of spamassassin. > > To quote Justin Mason: > "yeah, saw that. So far it appears the GA has decided we won't be using SPEWS > anyway in 2.60 -- RCVD_IN_OSIRU_SPAM_SRC is getting 0 or 0.001 scores from the > GA runs due to false positives." As long as it can always be re-enabled, I think it may be right that it should be disabled by default. It does block rather broadly. > (located in http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1152 ) > > Despite all the arguments from some that spews is actually useful to SA, > the GA proves otherwise. > > It's been my opinion for a very long time that although spews has a place > in the world, it does not belong in spamassassin. This opinion of mine > stems from the fact that some of their policies are clearly contrary to > some of the core principles behind spamassassin. (SpamAssassin is GAed on > the premise that 1 false positive is as bad as 100 false negatives. Spews > is based on the premise of listing everyone hosted by a spam friendly ISP, > without regard for if that individual customer is a spammer or not.) No, SPEWS is about listing the ISP itself, without regard for who the customers are or even if there are any customers. I've noticed a couple of occasions where expansion of a listing made it cover unoccupied space. I've no evidence for this but it's how it seems to me. SPEWS seems to have caused an increase in the accuracy of other DNSBLs (and hence the accuracy of SA) by pretty much putting a stop to the old whack-a-mole game that spam supporting ISPs used to play. That's one thing the GA won't show. This is amusing, it was SPEWS that caused me to rip out all my old antispam measures and start using SA in the first place. I needed to score with it because was too broad to reject with once I started hosting other ppl's mail on my own system, my all-in-procmail scoring system was the result of 4+ years of cruft, and blocking a valentine card from my ex g/f was kinda the last straw :) It'll always have a score in my rules, because what SPEWS does works, and works well. Try following nanae, ignore the flamewars, read the sensible posts and you will see spammy ISPs cleaning up their acts and throwing spammers off their systems because of SPEWS listings. > It's good to see that the divergent policies is leading to divergent paths > for SA and spews. The two are attempting to achieve the same end goal, but > the differences in philosophy of how to get to that goal are so different > that they really don't belong together. >From my POV the end goals appear to be as different as they could be whilst both being about spam. SA is to accurately identify and label spam, and SPEWS is to pressurise spamhost ISPs to make it harder for spammers to operate. They both do a good job of what they do, and I wouldn't want to be looking down the wrong end of either of them :) -- Yorkshire Dave -- Scanned by MailScanner at wot.no-ip.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
