Re: Hypothetical question?

Stephen K. Gielda wrote:
> In article <Xns967FD8A9A4B94mecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4 >,
> me@charlessweeney.com says...
>> Dennis wrote
>>
>>> Hypothetical situation.
>>>
>>>
>>> How long should it take (on adverage) for foo-bar hosting to get
>>> unblocked so that good foo-bar customers can resume sending email?
>>
>> Although hypothetical, it happens all the time. It happened to me
>> when I was a host, got my IP blocked on spamcop. Took about a week
>> or so to remove it, from memory.
>
> A spamcop listing will expire 48 hours from the time the last spam is
> seen.
>
> /steve
> --
> Free Privacy Resources
> http://www.cotse.net/resources.html

Seems to take about a day here
Sorbs charges $50 to remove you even after you present proof that you've
done away with the spammer.
Bloody extortionists!

--
dp

dp wrote

> Sorbs charges $50 to remove you even after you present proof that you've
> done away with the spammer.
> Bloody extortionists!

That's precisely what it is. In the same way that AV software makers need
viruses to stay in business, these people need spam to stay in business.

Yet another examplr of how the innocent user suffers at the hands of the
zealot, or in this case the extortionist.

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com

Once upon a time, far far away Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com>
muttered

>dp wrote
>
>> Sorbs charges $50 to remove you even after you present proof that you've
>> done away with the spammer.
>> Bloody extortionists!
>
>That's precisely what it is. In the same way that AV software makers need
>viruses to stay in business, these people need spam to stay in business.
>
>Yet another examplr of how the innocent user suffers at the hands of the
>zealot, or in this case the extortionist.
>

Being serious for a few minutes (that's about all I can manage at my
age), looking at the "spam" I receive, it strikes me that:

a) It's sent from faked email addresses (and those belonging to other
people)

b) No one is going to actually buy the advertised products in such
obviously faked adverts.

Which makes me wonder who really is sending it. I find it unlikely
that it's the companies as such, as they would not fake the sending
address - the exception being perhaps the adverts for hard core porn
sites which do seem to have genuine "from" details.

Matt

Matt Probert wrote

> Once upon a time, far far away Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com>
> muttered
>
>>dp wrote
>>
>>> Sorbs charges $50 to remove you even after you present proof that
>>> you've done away with the spammer.
>>> Bloody extortionists!
>>
>>That's precisely what it is. In the same way that AV software makers
>>need viruses to stay in business, these people need spam to stay in
>>business.
>>
>>Yet another examplr of how the innocent user suffers at the hands of
>>the zealot, or in this case the extortionist.
>>
>
> Being serious for a few minutes (that's about all I can manage at my
> age), looking at the "spam" I receive, it strikes me that:
>
> a) It's sent from faked email addresses (and those belonging to other
> people)
>
> b) No one is going to actually buy the advertised products in such
> obviously faked adverts.

Yep. It also stikes me that the zealots seem to be experts on all
things spam.

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, dp wrote:

> Sorbs charges $50 to remove you even after you present proof that you've
> done away with the spammer.
> Bloody extortionists!

http://www.us.sorbs.net/overview.shtml

[snip]
: Note: Use of this service is currently free of charge. References to
: the SORBS fine refers ONLY to the database of received spam. There is
: no charge for removal from the proxy, vulnerablility, relay, zombie or
: DUHL databases.
[snip]
[delisting is free:]
: Proxy Databases (HTTP/SOCKS & Misc)
[snip]
[delisting is free:]
: Open Relay (SMTP) Database
[snip]
[delisting is free:]
: Vulnerabilities Database
[snip]

[delisting is free:]
: Zombie Database
[snip]
[delisting is free:]
: Dynamic User/Host List Database (DUHL)
[snip]
: Spam Database
: Listing is manual and is performed when any spam is received at a
: SORBS spamtrap. SORBS spamtraps include, but are not limited to the
: private email addresses of the SORBS admins. On occasion when a
: particular network is seen to be spamming and listing has no effect
: the entire netblock will be listed. If spamming continues unabated the
: netblock be slowly expanded (depending on the number of spams
: received) until something is done about the spammer.
:
: Delisting if the netblock is expanded, delisting is only performed
: when the spammer is nolonger using the address space, in which case
: the netblock will be reduced down to the affected IPs free of charge.
: The effected IPs (the ones used to send the spam) will only be
: delisted when US$50 is donated to a SORBS nominated charity or good
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
: cause. The charities and good causes SORBS approves will not have any
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: connection with any member of the SORBS administrators either past or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: present.
^^^^^^^^
:
[delisting is free:]
: Admin block requests
: Listing is by request of the netblock owner.
:
: Delisting is free of charge and at the request of the netblock owner.
[snip]

Their alternative would probably be to charge nothing and then spend
26 hours[1] per day checking the validity of delisting requests that
claim that the spamming has been stopped when, most of the time, it
hasn't.

[1] But they only have 24 hours in a day and at least some of that time
has to be spent doing other things.
--
Windows is *not* a "Toy OS".
/me desperately trying to hide the URL for the screenshot of my desktop
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/tem...un-22-2005.gif

On 25 Jun 2005 dp wrote in alt.www.webmaster

> The problem is that the DB is distributed to ISP's.
> If they can't take the time to correct it. They should not be distributing
> it as gospel.

Hypothetically, thanks for all the feedback.

--
Dennis

Dennis wrote

> On 25 Jun 2005 dp wrote in alt.www.webmaster
>
>> The problem is that the DB is distributed to ISP's.
>> If they can't take the time to correct it. They should not be
>> distributing it as gospel.
>
> Hypothetically, thanks for all the feedback.

You're hypothetically welcome.

--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com