Re: Spam blacklist

[Nick Simicich <njs @ scifi . squawk . com>]

At 05:10 PM 2003-05-31 -0700, Bob Bish wrote:

>    It appears that my hosting IP may have been recently de-listed.  I'll 
> give it some time for various ISPs to update their databases and see if 
> those bounces cease.
>    Many thanks to all who have helped with this.

Is your IP address yours, personally, or is it shared?  I found this when I 
googled for the address, and then I checked it.

Received: from quake.3dhosting.com (unknown [207.44.172.52])
         by mycroft.greatcircle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20A51959D8
         for <majordomo-users@greatcircle.com>; Wed,  1 Jan 2003 13:30:36 
-0800 (PST)

I won't take mail from this address because it has no reverse 
resolution.  Just as a point.  Many hosting companies that intend the host 
to mostly be used for web are not providing reverse resolution as a 
"signal".  Are you sending mail directly from this host, or are you sending 
it from this host through the mail server that your ISP maintains?  If it 
is your address, and you use it for e-mail, the hosting company should 
provide reverse resolution that matches the forward resolution.

In the future, just as a suggestion, the right people to handle this issue 
is the abuse desk at YOUR ISP.  It is a fact of life that many ISPs simply 
do not care that they are sources of spam.  They do absolutely nothing 
about outside complaints.  The only time they will take action against a 
spammer is when they are listed in a blacklist and their own customers 
start complaining to them.

This came up on the postfix mailing list, and a lot of people posted a lot 
of strong opinions.  Then someone who actually worked at an abuse desk 
posted his story. They had a spamming customer and were ignoring all 
outside complaints at the direction of management.  They asked to be able 
to terminate the customer, and were told that they could not since the 
customer was paying their bills.

So then they were "escalated" (which is the term for what happens when the 
listing on a blacklist is broadened from a specific address used by a 
spammer to a containing network).

And the customers of the ISP started to complain.  And they threatened to walk.

And the next day the paying spamming customer who could not be terminated 
because they were paying their bills was terminated.

Now, when they have a situation where they have a pattern of complaints 
about a customer, they no longer wait for an escalation:  They immediately 
terminate the customer.  And their other customers are not listed in 
escalations, and they are happy, and they do not threaten to walk.

Simple economics.  The people you should be complaining to is your 
ISP.  They almost certainly had complaints before you were listed in what I 
presume was an escalation.  And they almost certainly did nothing until the 
escalation happened.

I would start asking hard questions, like how long they knew about the 
spammer before they terminated him, and if they are going to change their 
policies so that expansion does not have to happen in the future.

Personally, I approve of escalations.  My ISPs have made me agree to a 
strong anti-abuse policy. I like traditional mailing lists.  I believe that 
spam is the single thing that is likely to render mailing lists irrelevant, 
as e-mail as we know it becomes useless and unused because of the spam 
problem. I believe that, in general, if all the customers at my ISP are 
living up to this policy, that I am not likely to be listed in an 
escalation.  And if my ISP is getting service from someone that they should 
be acting as my agent if their range is listed because their ISP is not 
enforcing their rules on all of their customers.

---
The Rules of Spam:
Rule #0: Spam is theft.
Rule #1: Spammers lie.
(Proposed) Sharp's Corollary:  Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as 
that which they do not do.
Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1.
Chrissman's Corollary: A spammer, when caught, blames his victims.
Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.
Krueger's Corollary: Spammer lies are really stupid.
Pickett's Commentary: Spammer lies are boring.
Russell's Corollary: Never underestimate the stupidity of spammers.
Nick Simicich - njs@scifi.squawk.com