David Schwartz
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:20 am Post subject:
Re: VERIZON'S EMAIL SERVER IN RBL LIST, CAN'T SEND EMAILS |
|
|
"T. Sean Weintz" <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote in message
news:11d5a0e6566196c@news.supernews.com...
| Quote: | David Schwartz wrote:
What should the provider do?
I work for the company that owns and hosts the "webmaster.com"
domain. We get advertised in spam quite a bit (usually do to stupidity,
typos, or joe jobs). What should our provider do to us?
Generally such an account should be terminated right off, of course. At
least in the case of "stupidity". (by which I assume you mean real spam
from someone who did not know any better?)
|
No our stupidity, the stupidity of the spammers. In one case I remember
well, the default email address was something like webmaster@webmaster.com
in a spamming program. They simply failed to change the default (I presume
unintentionally, but I'll never know for sure).
| Quote: | How does something get spamvertized via a typo? I'm skeptical of that.
|
Well, for example, one spam was for a company that had a domain that was
almost the same as ours. I don't recall the exact name, but ours was
"webmaster.com" and theirs was something like "webmasters.com". In one
place, they put our domain name instead of theirs.
| Quote: | Joe Jobs - if the account can PROVE it is a joe job, then of course don't
terminate. However given that it's one of the most common excuse/lies
spammers have, the providor should never take a claim of a joe job at face
value. At bare minimum make them sign a notorized affidavit stating that
they have not hired any marketers to advertize their site via email, etc.
If they refuse to do so, then obviously they are full of $hit...
|
IMO, most joe jobs are pretty obviously joe jobs. You can tell the type
of web site that would spamvertize or that would benefit from spamvertizing.
However, the more burden you impose on the victim, the more effective
joe jobs are and the more of them there will be. The whole spam problem is
about burden shifting, and the more burden you shift on innocent people, the
worse the problem will be overall.
A joe job is most effective against a web site that's pretty slimy
anyway.
DS |
|
T. Sean Weintz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:20 pm Post subject:
Re: VERIZON'S EMAIL SERVER IN RBL LIST, CAN'T SEND EMAILS |
|
|
David Schwartz wrote:
| Quote: | "T. Sean Weintz" <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote in message
news:11d5a0e6566196c@news.supernews.com...
David Schwartz wrote:
What should the provider do?
I work for the company that owns and hosts the "webmaster.com"
domain. We get advertised in spam quite a bit (usually do to stupidity,
typos, or joe jobs). What should our provider do to us?
Generally such an account should be terminated right off, of course. At
least in the case of "stupidity". (by which I assume you mean real spam
from someone who did not know any better?)
No our stupidity, the stupidity of the spammers. In one case I remember
well, the default email address was something like webmaster@webmaster.com
in a spamming program. They simply failed to change the default (I presume
unintentionally, but I'll never know for sure).
|
No one should have IP's blacklisted for having an email address in their
domain as the "from" or "return path" in a spam. Mute question. I have
never heard of this happening. I have herad people CLAIM it, but on
investigation of their cliams, has always turned out there were other
reasons they were blacklisted.
If the email is a link or text in the spam itself, then this would
qaulify as a joe job (althougyh an unintentional one) IMO.
| Quote: |
How does something get spamvertized via a typo? I'm skeptical of that.
Well, for example, one spam was for a company that had a domain that was
almost the same as ours. I don't recall the exact name, but ours was
"webmaster.com" and theirs was something like "webmasters.com". In one
place, they put our domain name instead of theirs.
|
That sucks. If the ISP is sure it's a typo, then upon receiving a
complaint they should contact the major blacklists and post to NANAE
explaining the situation. Should do so immediately after first complaint
received.
| Quote: |
Joe Jobs - if the account can PROVE it is a joe job, then of course don't
terminate. However given that it's one of the most common excuse/lies
spammers have, the providor should never take a claim of a joe job at face
value. At bare minimum make them sign a notorized affidavit stating that
they have not hired any marketers to advertize their site via email, etc.
If they refuse to do so, then obviously they are full of $hit...
IMO, most joe jobs are pretty obviously joe jobs. You can tell the type
of web site that would spamvertize or that would benefit from spamvertizing.
However, the more burden you impose on the victim, the more effective
joe jobs are and the more of them there will be. The whole spam problem is
about burden shifting, and the more burden you shift on innocent people, the
worse the problem will be overall.
|
let me revise that - get proof when it's not obvious that the claim is
true.
| Quote: | A joe job is most effective against a web site that's pretty slimy
anyway.
|
True. |
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in