[R-390] Re: QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy
Robert Simpson
bobs at pacbell.net
Fri Dec 9 16:31:39 EST 2005
Hi
Was just wondering f this is why my submissions to the r-390 are usually
rejected - and waiting to see if this message is "bounced"
Bob
a HAm wannabee and an owner of a R390A
At 03:01 PM 12/7/05, r-390-request at mailman.qth.net wrote:
>Send R-390 mailing list submissions to
> r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> r-390-request at mailman.qth.net
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> r-390-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of R-390 digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy (Jim M.)
> 2. Re: QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy (mikea)
> 3. Re: QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy (Todd, KA1KAQ)
> 4. Re: QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy (Barry Hauser)
> 5. RE: QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy (Richard Loken)
> 6. A Christmas Wish (Craig C. Heaton)
> 7. Re: QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy (w9ya at arrl.net)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:01:51 -0500
>From: "Jim M." <jmiller1706 at cfl.rr.com>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy
>Cc: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <001001c5fb2e$640f2a30$0df42141 at your9efcb93c24>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
>Apparently Tom Norris is using Google mail (gmail). Google embeds
>advertising to pay for the "free" service. Does this advertising find its
>way into outgoing emails and get blocked by sorbs? The sorbs website is
>http://www.us.sorbs.net/ maybe that can help.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <w9ya at arrl.net>
>To: <bill at iaxs.net>
>Cc: <r390radio at gmail.com>; <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 2:49 AM
>Subject: RE: [R-390] QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy
>
>
> > What is truly ironic is that qth.net was/is a user of the sorbs lists
> > themselves. Hi...Hi....
> > (I know because I tried to explain the very argument below for NOT using
> > sorbs to the owner of qth.net a while back to no avail. And I am being
> > polite about how my argument was received by saying "to no avail".)
> >
> > Vy 73;
> >
> > Bob
> > w9ya
> >
> >
> >> Welcome to the club!
> >>
> >> SORBS is an acronym for something. It is also the name of a group
> >> of highwaymen that have set out on the holy quest to rid the internet of
> >> spam. Highwaymen? You bet! If your ISP lets a spammer slip through then
> >> SORBS blacklists them until they have paid for every bit of spam that
> >> SORBS has received. Never mind that the ISP was not the spammer. They
> >> should have had some software in place that intercepted the spam.
> >>
> >> This goes back to the days when some ISPs were open gateways for spam,
> >> like GTE. Now, the only spam that gets through an ISP is from somebody
> >> who signed up with the ISP and agreed not to spam, but didn't mean it.
> >> SORBS thinks that the ISP should have somehow known better.
> >>
> >> SORBS distributes its blacklist services for free. They make their money
> >> by holding ISPs hostage until they pay the toll. The only way out of
> >> this is for people who use SORBS' "service" to realize what's going on
> >> and drop SORBS. It is still true that you get what you pay for.
> >>
> >> My ISP let a spammer slip through for a day before they shut him down,
> >> back in August. They will not pay SORBS and so they are still on the
> >> block list. Been there, heard both sides, want nothing to do with SORBS.
> >>
> >> Ho, ho, ho
> >> Bill Hawkins
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> >> [mailto:r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Tom Norris
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 8:57 PM
> >> To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
> >> Subject: [R-390] QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy
> >>
> >>
> >> The past week or so about half of what I post to the list gets bounced
> >> back by s.o.r.b.s. as being "spam" or at least it gets bounced back
> >> because someone at bellsouth sent spam somewhere at sometime and one of
> >> the ip addresses in that address pool is marked as evil.
> >>
> >> The sorbs website gives users whose mail has bounced a chance to input
> >> their ip address and "clear their name" so to speak. Trouble is, I'm on
> >> dialup and therefore have a dynamic ip.
> >>
> >> I call BellSouth and they have no idea what I'm talking about, nor do
> >> they care when I give them the information.
> >>
> >> Anyone else getting email on QTH.net lists bounced back by this sorbs
> >> service?????
> >>
> >> This is becoming more and more frequent to the point that posting is
> >> nearly impossible on any of the lists I'm subscribed to on qth.net.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom
> >> _____________________________________________________________
> >> R-390 mailing list
> >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> >> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
> >>
> >> _____________________________________________________________
> >> R-390 mailing list
> >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> >> Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
> >
> >
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________
> > R-390 mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> > Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> > Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
> >
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:11:10 -0600
>From: mikea <mikea at mikea.ath.cx>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy
>To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID: <20051207091110.D60498 at mikea.ath.cx>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 08:01:51AM -0500, Jim M. wrote:
> > Apparently Tom Norris is using Google mail (gmail). Google embeds
> > advertising to pay for the "free" service. Does this advertising find its
> > way into outgoing emails and get blocked by sorbs? The sorbs website is
> > http://www.us.sorbs.net/ maybe that can help.
>
>I do mail filtering and security for a living, as you might infer from my
>sig block. This is a subject which pays my salary and determines whether my
>annual evaluation will be good or bad. It's near and dear to my heart, and
>I've been doing it long enough (10 years now) to be able to speak abouot it
>with some credibility.
>
>As others have written earlier in this thread, SORBS distributes a list of
>IP addresses and blocks from which spam is known to have come. SORBS does
>not block anything; it provides a means for others to decide to block or
>not (or, in my case, to add to a score or not) depending on whether or not
>the sending IP address is listed in SORBS.
>
>Google Mail (gmail.com), as handy as it undoubtedly is, is a prolific
>source of spam, and so gmail.com's outbound mail servers are listed in
>SORBS. Google has been unresponsive to repeated complaints from *BIG*
>outfits, like AOL, Cox Cable, and Time-Warner, about the volume of spam
>coming from its IP space, and I suppose that the SORBS operators got
>enough valid reports of these spams to cause gmail to be listed. _I_ use
>gmail, and _I_ think it should be listed, because of all the spam I get
>from gmail.
>
>This is not vigilantes riding to Save The Internet. It's not people who
>want to hurt other people. It's _NOT_ a conspiracy, despite what the
>subject says. It's just people who run mailservers, trying to keep spam
>from consuming their bandwidth, disk storage, processor busy, and
>administrative resources. This is self-regulation at work. Absent a
>contract, we're not obliged to accept mail from anyone else, and even an
>ISP has the right under existing law to apply such filters as it sees fit
>to use.
>
>Here's what I've seen so far in December:
> Mails spamassassin rejected scanner total mails
> Total says 'spam' by ruleset says virus undelivered
> Dec 1 20051 6334 (31.59%) 4549 (22.69%) 1385 ( 6.91%) 12268 (61.18%)
> Dec 2 19744 6822 (34.55%) 4329 (21.93%) 1710 ( 8.66%) 12861 (65.14%)
> Dec 3 13282 5908 (44.48%) 3944 (29.69%) 1225 ( 9.22%) 11077 (83.40%)
> Dec 4 13394 5413 (40.41%) 3999 (29.86%) 1418 (10.59%) 10830 (80.86%)
> Dec 5 18456 6103 (33.07%) 5173 (28.03%) 1540 ( 8.34%) 12816 (69.44%)
> Dec 6 18769 6483 (34.54%) 4533 (24.15%) 1511 ( 8.05%) 12527 (66.74%)
>
>The "spamassassin says 'spam'" column is based on the total score of a
>piece of mail after SpamAssassin checks body and headers against some
>thousands of rules, specifically including SORBS. If the score is over a
>threshold that I set, the mail is marked as spam and not delivered.
>
>That's how things work here at ODOT and at other places which use
>MailScanner and SpamAssassin. Other places may just check the SORBS
>list and various other DNSBLs, and reject mail which comes from listed
>servers. We could do that, but it's a bit Draconian for my management
>right now.
>
>We just spent $20K on hardware to run the mailfilter software, and I
>get paid something like $40K per year. That last is public record, so
>I don't mind sending it to the list. That's a bunch to spend just to
>get the spam down to a manageable level, but it's what it takes here.
>
>The problem is that spam makes up something like 60% to 90% of all the
>mail on the Internet, and it's only getting worse. I catch flak because
>I don't catch enough; that means I should screw down the filters, but
>doing that means that I'll plonk too much real business-related mail.
>
>Each ISP or other mailserver administrator has to make his own decisions
>on what to do, and it's damned hard.
>
>When I complain to ISPs about the spam they (or their subscribers) emit, I
>usually include one or more of these as food for thought:
>
>o End-to-end connectivity is the "coin of the realm" for
> internet operations. Use it wisely. You only control
> your end of it.
>
>o ISPs sell connectivity to the world. They provide
> connectivity to their own facilities. The "product"
> they sell depends upon the forebearance of millions of
> other systems whose cooperation is REQUIRED for them
> to not be fraudulently selling something they cannot
> provide.
>
>o Being a "good net neighbor" isn't just some geeky hippy
> touchy feely nor politically correct concept. It's the
> core usability of the Internet, and inherent in its
> technical designs. It's the way it works, and it isn't
> going away.
>
>o "You are a _guest_ here, and an uninvited one at that.
> Stop behaving as if you were the landlord."
>
>o Part of being a provider is taking responsibility for
> what leaves your network. If every provider did this,
> each provider would be spending most of their time
> managing mail from ONE network, their own. Instead,
> every provider has to manage the mail flow from every
> other provider. Huge waste of resources. -- CM Borgia
>
>o This is about doing the right thing, not about having
> the contractual right to do a questionable thing.
>
>--
>Mike Andrews
>mikea at mikea.ath.cx, mandrews at odot.org
>Information Security
>Oklahoma Department of Transportation
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:33:08 -0500
>From: "Todd, KA1KAQ" <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy
>To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID:
> <9ccb8c510512070733s485b5fdqbe99d5b77a425b7e at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>Mike -
>
>Great dissertation, but I have one question related to the gmail end
>of it: I've been using it for over a year, now. Only recently did I
>see any bounces from it on QTH (only place, so far). And the odd thing
>is, if I resend later, it goes through to the lists fine. This speaks
>to only the few (4-6) times it has bounced back. Every other time it
>makes the lists fine.
>
>I'm a mainframe geek here, we're in the same 40K range but I get to do
>'fun' stuff (*cough*cough*) like DASD space management, SMS/HSM
>updating, and managing a Virtual Tape system. I'd rather be playing
>with old radios!
>
>73 de Todd/'Boomer' KA1KAQ
>
>On 12/7/05, mikea <mikea at mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 08:01:51AM -0500, Jim M. wrote:
> > > Apparently Tom Norris is using Google mail (gmail). Google embeds
> > > advertising to pay for the "free" service. Does this advertising
> find its
> > > way into outgoing emails and get blocked by sorbs? The sorbs website is
> > > http://www.us.sorbs.net/ maybe that can help.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:54:40 -0500
>From: Barry Hauser <barry at hausernet.com>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy
>To: mikea <mikea at mikea.ath.cx>, r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID: <03c001c5fb46$88da7d70$0d0aa8c0 at yourf95424bb04>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
> reply-type=original
>
>Interesting stuff, Mike.
>
>Due primarily to spam and spam blockers, I did away with 95% of the email
>traffic in my business. It had become unreliable to the point where
>something like 20% of emails weren't delivered or received and our
>computers were too exposed to worms and viruses, despite the latest
>protection software.
>
>We set up a customer service type, web based help desk "ticketing system".
>While it has an email feature, we have it turned off. Those who need to
>communicate with us have accounts and passwords and log into a special web
>site to post messages. Topics are organized with click-on options and this
>controls the routing to whomever is supposed to handle the various types of
>inquiries.
>
>The near equivalent can be replicated with the reflectors by simply
>eliminating email input and output and allowing only direct reading and
>posting on the web site.
>
>If things continue this way or get worse, that might have to be the way to
>go. It's just too bad the "modern marvel" of email has gotten fouled up
>already. It's already gotten to the point that clients and agents have to
>phone in to make sure their email has been received -- which sort of defeats
>a good deal of the purpose.
>
>Fortunately (segue-ing to on topic) our R-390's are relatively spam proof.
>I say relatively as there's always the odd chance that a previous owner
>tossed in a few morsels of the canned stuff, possibly to feed the radio
>spider, or when he was muching on a spam, spam, ham and spam sandwich while
>doing an alignment.
>
>Barry
>
>
>
>
>
>Mike wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 08:01:51AM -0500, Jim M. wrote:
> >> Apparently Tom Norris is using Google mail (gmail). Google embeds
> >> advertising to pay for the "free" service. Does this advertising find
> >> its
> >> way into outgoing emails and get blocked by sorbs? The sorbs website is
> >> http://www.us.sorbs.net/ maybe that can help.
> >
> > I do mail filtering and security for a living, as you might infer from my
> > sig block. This is a subject which pays my salary and determines whether
> > my
> > annual evaluation will be good or bad. It's near and dear to my heart, and
> > I've been doing it long enough (10 years now) to be able to speak abouot
> > it
> > with some credibility.
>
><snipped>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:17:11 -0700 (MST)
>From: Richard Loken <richardlo at admin.athabascau.ca>
>Subject: RE: [R-390] QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy
>To: Bill Hawkins <bill at iaxs.net>
>Cc: Tom Norris <r390radio at gmail.com>, r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID:
> <Pine.PMDF.3.95.1051207111304.541369597D-100000 at admin.athabascau.ca>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Bill Hawkins wrote:
>
> > SORBS is an acronym for something. It is also the name of a group
>
>I think ORBS stood for Open Relay Blocking Service. There are very few
>open relays left, the spammers have to be a bit more direct in there
>actions these days.
>
> > of highwaymen that have set out on the holy quest to rid the internet
> > of spam. Highwaymen? You bet! If your ISP lets a spammer slip through
> > then SORBS blacklists them until they have paid for every bit of spam
>
>That is not all. They used to blacklist ISP's if the ISP would not allow
>SORBS to surf their address block looking for SMTP listeners to test.
>
>They are first class A**H***s!
>
>--
> Richard Loken VE6BSV, Systems Programmer - VMS : "Anybody can be a father
> Athabasca University : but you have to earn
> Athabasca, Alberta Canada : the title of 'daddy'"
> ** richardlo at admin.athabascau.ca ** : - Lynn Johnston
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:47:27 -0800
>From: "Craig C. Heaton" <wd8kdg at worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: [R-390] A Christmas Wish
>To: "R-390A" <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
>Message-ID: <MFBBKNJBIJAPALAMPCPMGEFNCGAA.wd8kdg at worldnet.att.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>To All,
>
> Well, after becoming a caretaker of a R-390A for less than a
> year, I would
>like to make a suggestion to this illustrious group, using the phrase "To
>make the best, better", the Y2K manual could use a few additions. Also
>please accept the fact, I don't know the original intent of those who wrote
>this manual.
>
> With that said, I'll further clarify. Roger, KC6TRU, made a post on
>Sept.26,2005 and it included a few sentences. "Once you get to the point
>where you have a calibration tone every 100 KC, you have a working R390/A. A
>working R390/A and a wonderful receiving R390/A should not be confused with
>a good looking R390/A. Each of these are different. Good looking R390/A's
>are selling for over $1000.00 on Epay and may not work at all." His next few
>pages outlined what it takes to arrive at a wonderful receiving R390/A. Now,
>Roger is to blame for my quest of a wonderful receiving R390/A.
>
> The Y2K manual is great. Without its content, I would not of been
> able to
>arrive at the point where I have a working R390/A. Note, this is the first
>receiver I've ever attempted to repair, fix, restore, align, etc. Heck, the
>manual is only 300 and some pages, what's a couple more to take us to a
>wonderful receiving R390/A.
>
> So, addition one: How about something like Scott Seickel's
> illustration of
>how to reassemble the gear train. Using his information and good techniques
>on disassemble, I laid everything out on a clean bench in order, it still
>took over 12 hours to clean, reassemble, and lubricate the tranny. Note, I
>did not say copy his work without his permission. Great work Scott!
>
> At some point the IF section has to be able to pass a 30db Signal
> + noise
>to noise test. Or at least some authors in the past have stated. With that
>in mind and not wanting to start a feud, measurement creeps into the
>picture. A short dissertation of what happens when a sig-gen, such as a
>URM-25() is used without consideration of impedance matching, RF leakage,
>etc. Then addition two: A blow by blow account of what to connect, where to
>connect, the values are we looking for, and the correct order of tubes to
>swap while measuring for the 30db goal. Is that clear?? I believe I know the
>answers and pitfalls, but they were spread out at different sites and had to
>sift through several hundred pages.
>
> Addition three: Same thing in the above paragraph to the RF
> section all the
>while hoping for the 20db difference between modulated signal to unmodulated
>signal. Of course ignoring impedance matching between the sig-gen/receiver,
>RF leakage, plus the antenna to be used with the receiver will vary your
>results in real life.
>
> The three above wishes are made without criticism. Not everyone that
>follows this group has a radio background as a living. Bet you a soda few
>here have ever sent an instrument to a metrology lab for
>calibration/certification.
>
> Gotta find some tubes..........with that and not trying to be
> politically
>correct, after all more people are trying to get into the U.S. than are
>trying to leave.
>
> MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!
>
>wd8kdg
>Craig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:59:13 -0500 (EST)
>From: <w9ya at arrl.net>
>Subject: Re: [R-390] QTH.NET and the sorbs conspiracy
>To: <mikea at mikea.ath.cx>
>Cc: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID:
> <49067.65.166.80.196.1133996353.squirrel at w9ya0.pointclark.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>Hey Mike and the gang;
>
>That is all well and good OM except for one thing: Your diagnosis and such
>below ASSUMES that SORBS only blocks with care and with repeated offenses
>and etc.
>
>HOWEVER that is not the case. I run my own email, and some of which was
>blocked not by ip address but by domain, which in one case I both owned
>and was the ONLY email account that originated. I was NOT generating any
>spam, viruses ladened email, etc. which was/is document-able. YET I was
>STILL listed by SORBS. Their reasons were specious and the details of
>which are convoluted and NOT worth discussing herein.
>
>Nonetheless I was black-listed by SORBS and my ONLY choice was to pay them
>large amounts of money to be unlisted. <- That was what the original email
>on this thread was about and I agree with the author of that email: SORBS
>is a rip-off.
>
>
>Vy 73;
>
>Bob
>w9ya
>
>
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 08:01:51AM -0500, Jim M. wrote:
> >> Apparently Tom Norris is using Google mail (gmail). Google embeds
> >> advertising to pay for the "free" service. Does this advertising find
> >> its way into outgoing emails and get blocked by sorbs? The sorbs
> >> website is http://www.us.sorbs.net/ maybe that can help.
> >
> > I do mail filtering and security for a living, as you might infer from
> > my sig block. This is a subject which pays my salary and determines
> > whether my annual evaluation will be good or bad. It's near and dear to
> > my heart, and I've been doing it long enough (10 years now) to be able
> > to speak abouot it with some credibility.
> >
> > As others have written earlier in this thread, SORBS distributes a list
> > of IP addresses and blocks from which spam is known to have come. SORBS
> > does not block anything; it provides a means for others to decide to
> > block or not (or, in my case, to add to a score or not) depending on
> > whether or not the sending IP address is listed in SORBS.
> >
> >
> > Google Mail (gmail.com), as handy as it undoubtedly is, is a prolific
> > source of spam, and so gmail.com's outbound mail servers are listed in
> > SORBS. Google has been unresponsive to repeated complaints from *BIG*
> > outfits, like AOL, Cox Cable, and Time-Warner, about the volume of spam
> > coming from its IP space, and I suppose that the SORBS operators got
> > enough valid reports of these spams to cause gmail to be listed. _I_ use
> > gmail, and _I_ think it should be listed, because of all the spam I get
> > from gmail.
> >
> > This is not vigilantes riding to Save The Internet. It's not people who
> > want to hurt other people. It's _NOT_ a conspiracy, despite what the
> > subject says. It's just people who run mailservers, trying to keep spam
> > from consuming their bandwidth, disk storage, processor busy, and
> > administrative resources. This is self-regulation at work. Absent a
> > contract, we're not obliged to accept mail from anyone else, and even an
> > ISP has the right under existing law to apply such filters as it sees
> > fit to use.
> >
> > Here's what I've seen so far in December:
> > Mails spamassassin rejected scanner total mails
> > Total says 'spam' by ruleset says virus undelivered
> > Dec 1 20051 6334 (31.59%) 4549 (22.69%) 1385 ( 6.91%) 12268 (61.18%)
> > Dec 2 19744 6822 (34.55%) 4329 (21.93%) 1710 ( 8.66%) 12861 (65.14%)
> > Dec 3 13282 5908 (44.48%) 3944 (29.69%) 1225 ( 9.22%) 11077 (83.40%)
> > Dec 4 13394 5413 (40.41%) 3999 (29.86%) 1418 (10.59%) 10830 (80.86%)
> > Dec 5 18456 6103 (33.07%) 5173 (28.03%) 1540 ( 8.34%) 12816 (69.44%)
> > Dec 6 18769 6483 (34.54%) 4533 (24.15%) 1511 ( 8.05%) 12527 (66.74%)
> >
> > The "spamassassin says 'spam'" column is based on the total score of a
> > piece of mail after SpamAssassin checks body and headers against some
> > thousands of rules, specifically including SORBS. If the score is over a
> > threshold that I set, the mail is marked as spam and not delivered.
> >
> > That's how things work here at ODOT and at other places which use
> > MailScanner and SpamAssassin. Other places may just check the SORBS
> > list and various other DNSBLs, and reject mail which comes from listed
> > servers. We could do that, but it's a bit Draconian for my management
> > right now.
> >
> > We just spent $20K on hardware to run the mailfilter software, and I
> > get paid something like $40K per year. That last is public record, so I
> > don't mind sending it to the list. That's a bunch to spend just to get
> > the spam down to a manageable level, but it's what it takes here.
> >
> > The problem is that spam makes up something like 60% to 90% of all the
> > mail on the Internet, and it's only getting worse. I catch flak because
> > I don't catch enough; that means I should screw down the filters, but
> > doing that means that I'll plonk too much real business-related mail.
> >
> > Each ISP or other mailserver administrator has to make his own decisions
> > on what to do, and it's damned hard.
> >
> > When I complain to ISPs about the spam they (or their subscribers) emit,
> > I usually include one or more of these as food for thought:
> >
> > o End-to-end connectivity is the "coin of the realm" for
> > internet operations. Use it wisely. You only control
> > your end of it.
> >
> > o ISPs sell connectivity to the world. They provide
> > connectivity to their own facilities. The "product"
> > they sell depends upon the forebearance of millions of
> > other systems whose cooperation is REQUIRED for them
> > to not be fraudulently selling something they cannot
> > provide.
> >
> > o Being a "good net neighbor" isn't just some geeky hippy
> > touchy feely nor politically correct concept. It's the
> > core usability of the Internet, and inherent in its
> > technical designs. It's the way it works, and it isn't
> > going away.
> >
> > o "You are a _guest_ here, and an uninvited one at that.
> > Stop behaving as if you were the landlord."
> >
> > o Part of being a provider is taking responsibility for
> > what leaves your network. If every provider did this,
> > each provider would be spending most of their time
> > managing mail from ONE network, their own. Instead,
> > every provider has to manage the mail flow from every
> > other provider. Huge waste of resources. -- CM Borgia
> >
> > o This is about doing the right thing, not about having
> > the contractual right to do a questionable thing.
> >
> > --
> > Mike Andrews
> > mikea at mikea.ath.cx, mandrews at odot.org
> > Information Security
> > Oklahoma Department of Transportation
> > _____________________________________________________________
> > R-390 mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> > Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> > Unsubscribe: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/options/r-390
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>R-390 mailing list
>R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>
>
>End of R-390 Digest, Vol 20, Issue 15
>*************************************
More information about the R-390
mailing list