[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-video
Subject:    Re: [linux-dvb] OT: Re:  linuxtv.org fell in the blacklists trap
From:       hermann pitton <hermann-pitton () arcor ! de>
Date:       2007-10-31 2:40:33
Message-ID: 1193798433.4521.1.camel () pc08 ! localdom ! local
[Download RAW message or body]

Am Mittwoch, den 31.10.2007, 02:44 +0100 schrieb thomas schorpp:
> Luca Olivetti wrote:
> > En/na Jim Barber ha escrit:
> > > Sorbs will remove you from their list once you contact them and prove 
> > > you have a static IP address though.
> > 
> > Yes, they did, *twice*, since they wrongly listed my address *twice* 
> > (though I thought I already stated that) but I shouldn't go through all 
> > of this.
> > Besides, one shouldn't have more or less rights to have an own mail 
> > server depending on the fact that the address is static or dynamic.
> > And others blacklists don't even listen to you (and, again, even if they 
> > would, it's tiresome and shouldn't be necessary).
> > The net result is that spammers simply hop from network to network and 
> > can send their shit with no problem, while non-spam is blocked. Good job.
> > 
> > Bye
> 
> I'm with Luca.
> 
> in general blacklisting is an unprofessional, trivial security concept and \
> completely sucks,  especially sorbs:
> 
> Netblock:	91.89.4.0/24 (91.89.4.0-91.89.4.255)
> Last Seen:	Thu Feb 15 15:15:12 2007 GMT
> Additional Information:	ad-online.biz. A 91.89.4.92 [TTL=1800] Job Scam Spammers
> 
> they still block my mail server on .246 cause some spamfucks were once in my \
> assigned netblock??? great. and blocking Luca against their own(!) whitelist policy \
> is really scandalous. 
> I and many people can't simply afford the horrific costs of static and NIC \
> registered IPs. this is social discrimination of internet users and glorifying the \
> few big mailprovider's monopoly  all in the name of a "protection system" that has \
> been long proven of complete failure by spamgangs. 
> Jim, so how to prove ownership of a IP? thats actually a crap requirement, cause \
> only the ISP  can certify. NIC registry can't, too. I can register every fake data \
> in there. spamgangs do so. CA signed server certificates can't prove ownership of \
> an IP, too, cause I could use any proxy  and fake certify ownership of its IP that \
> way. so practically you never get delisted from sorbs,  once listed. they don't do \
> blacklisting, actually they do whitelisting in their big sponsors preferences(?) in \
> fact. 
> besides this is a violation of accepted civilized international law principles. \
> pre-convicted for having done  nothing. BTW law: in most countries courts take \
> denied mails *as delivered*(!) to evidence whatever the reason for denial! so \
> companies be very careful using blocklists... 
> sorbs: "Fighting spam by finding and listing Exploitable Servers.". real great \
> policy. Which administrator  can assure that his systems are 100% unexploitable all \
> the time? this is pure SCI-FI and not a  accepted all day practioneer's \
> requirement. 
> as Luca said, spam-gangs avoid it easily. Johannes, PLS use a bayesian filter / \
> greylisting combination. or use spamhaus at least. they have a much kinder not \
> "ordinary dynamic IP internet  mail user discriminating" delisting policy :) 
> 
> with private house community wlan-routers, wifi-hotspots, inetcafes, anonymizers \
> further upcoming,  blacklisting has become complete idiocracy. sorbs go on, \
> blacklist them all! spamgangs laugh at You.
> 
> y
> tom
> 

I also fully agree.

Cheers,
Hermann


--
video4linux-list mailing list
Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]