>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:31 PM
>> To: mouss
>> Cc: Jeff Peng; users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: URIBLFP? [Was: SA or Commercial AntiSpam products]
>>
>> mouss wrote:
>> > (top posting because not a reply:)
>> >
>> > this message triggers:
>> > URIBL_BLACK (nease DOT net. found in the message footer)
>> > MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY (because of
>> X-Originating-IP:
>> > [218.19.159.186])
>> >
>> > and also
>> > DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE
>> > DNS_FROM_RFC_POST
>> > MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER
>> >
>> > is the uribl listing justified or is it too "aggressive"?
>> >
>>
>
>Is the listing justified? Hrmm..
>
>An SA Dev (which will remain nameless) requested this listing at
>2005-07-19 21:10:16. It was accepted at 2005-07-20 01:03:49. Its
>been listed since then... No requests for change or delist.
>
>We'll be happy to move it to grey if need be... But nobody has spoke up
>since its listing.
>
>Thanks,
>Dallas
>
I'm sure the original listing was requested in good faith. And
many of the Netease domains are seriously abused (mostly by Americans).
In particular 163.com-M and 126.com-M are often favorites for spam domains'
contacts' email accounts and for drop-boxes. But in general listing any
Netease domain is like listing HotPop domains or even (stretching a bit
here) mail.com domains. They are so very large, and have millions of
non-spamming customers and on just that basis should not be in "black".
Whether or not "nease.net-M" should be grey is an open issue, but I can
easily see how the extreme abuse would make 126.com-M and 163.com-M have
"grey" listings, but neither of those domains are listed, so likely all
of the Netease domains should have the same status.
I'm not even sure if normal users can get accounts at nease.net-M;
It is used for name service and email contacts for other Netease domains
(e.g. lookup Whois records and DNS for 126.com-M and 163.com-M).
Just my opinion, but at worse I think any Netease domain should
only be grey, and not a black listing; Just like mail.com or HotPop, they
have a share of abusers, but it isn't large compared to their size (though
they are almost as bad as yahoo.com-M or hotmail.com-M for spam domains'
contacts' email accounts frequency; Before switching to using Hotmail,
163.com-M seemed to have been Ralsky's favorite).
Paul Shupak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
