Bind - one pc,two ips ,two dns servers

[Christopher Chan]

Res wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Christopher Chan wrote:
> 
>>> Yet, I'm just not there, I'm on mailops though, its nice low traffic, I
>>> have enough crap to sioft through every day as it is
>> Hahaha. Don't worry, if you can handle the postfix list, you can handle
>> spam-l no problemo. But spam-l members are mostly hosters (lurkers not
>> included) so maybe there is not much point for you unless you want to
>> try to ping a hoster's admin/postmaster.
> 
> If I need that, I know the number to most noc's in my country, and then
> there's also the noc-list that is world-wide, granted not ever noc is on 
> it but an awful lot are. If I find time over the next few days I'll try 
> looking at their archives and seeing if I think its worth it, the last 
> time I looked around '98/99  it wasnt, so I forgot all about em :)

Oh, you don't deal at all with the netblock user? You go straight to the 
upstream first?

> 
>> And I suppose you are going to say that Matthew calls Outblaze spammers.
> 
> Dunno, never spoken to Matt about them. Blocking outblaze here started a 
> a fair few years before I even met him.

/me shrugs. If it were before 2002 when I joined Outblaze, I guess it is 
no surprise. No captcha then and there were spammers automatically 
creating thousands of accounts to be used when the time was right. 
Pretty much cat and mouse. I still remember having to blow away 500K+ of 
porn spams from the queues. After a few spats of that in my first six 
months with Outblaze while waiting for resources from Engineering to 
code something up to deal with the problem, I decided that I have had it 
and wrote a simple string filter in C to drop spams based on the urls 
the spammers are using and to log the accounts. Oh, guess when the 
bounce floods started. Captcha finally came later from Engineering for 
what good it does...

Ah, the joys of working in a small company doing big things with marked 
responsibilities.

> 
>>> Once a spammer always a spammer I spose.
>> Well then, produce proof that Outblaze spams or sends spams on behalf of
>> others then.
> 
> So you want me to remove filters, just to satisify you, your old employer 
> doesnt have spamming users on its network?  I'll ask a client who is a 
> very good friend of mine who has a dedicated server if he has had any 
> recently, but a box that handles one domain is likely to have little 
> results against one with tens of thousands, but I'll ask him anyway.
> 

Ha! I find it amazing that you let Yahoo!, Hotmail and Google through 
even though they not only have way more scripters and scammers abusing 
their systems but also have difficult/non-responsive abuse desks. Yet at 
the same time, Outblaze who actively searches for such scum accounts 
besides killing accounts that are reported, does not get the same 
treatment. Google even goes so far as to obfuscate ip addresses but you 
only have a little problem with them. I don't really care why you block 
them but coming out and accusing someone without evidence is not on. 
Mail.com, Outblaze's long time client, is a free webmail service just 
like them three. What do you expect if a team of Nigerian scammers has 
again modified their message to get past filters like they constantly do 
on Yahoo!, Hotmail and Google?

Nah, keep your filters. That way, you will never get an excuse to use an 
email from a to-be-shutdown 419 scammer account as 'evidence' of 
Outblaze being a spammer/scammer supporting outfit.

> 
>>> If it looks like spam, smells like spam, then it will be spam, I give fair
>>> warning before I block, if they co-operate I have greater tolerance, if
>>> they don't, then i couldnt give a rats ass who they are, I'll call em
>>> spammers and block em.
>> HA! Unfortunately, I doubt you have automated removal of netblocks that
>> have been allocated to some clueless company who don't know they are
>> getting 'tainted' netblocks from their unscrupulous ISP. So even if, as
> 
> Thats correct, and that is not my problem. We have a working postmaster 
> link in the reject emails if they feel they are hard done by.
> 

Sure, sure. You probably don't have to keep normal users happy at the 
same time anyway unlike free webmail users like Outblaze, Yahoo! and 
whoever.

Anyway, keep going on you MTA admin. I ain't doing that anymore. Too 
much stress fighting spammers and keeping users happy at the same time.