17 Jan
2008
17 Jan
'08
1:43 a.m.
Der von ihnen angeschriebene Mitarbeiter arbeitet nicht mehr bei der Firma GPS Technik
AG.
Bitte wenden sie sich an info(a)gpstechnik.ch oder 0041 44 732 99 77.
17 Jan
17 Jan
2:25 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
On Thursday 17. January 2008, f.jachiet(a)gpstechnik.ch wrote:
Der von ihnen angeschriebene Mitarbeiter arbeitet
nicht mehr
bei der Firma GPS Technik AG.
Bitte wenden sie sich an info(a)gpstechnik.ch oder 0041 44 732
99 77.
Hi Firma GPS Technik AG.
***
For your information: You have an autoresponder loop on the
account f.jachiet(a)gpstechnik.ch <-> swinog(a)swinog.ch:
http://marmoset.init7.net/public/swinog/2008-January/thread.html#2419
***
I would rather be writing about the topic UCE-pro* and their
autocratic point of view. But what you guys show here is just
plain embarrassing and awkward (and is about to eliminate
allmost every legitimation to argue with UCE-pro*). Haven't we
had it here for a dozen of times? Do you know what precedence:
list is?
Is it possible that you either:
* don't use autoresponders
* use working autoresponders
* use seperate accounts for mailinglists (and don't use
autoresponders on it!)
* don't use Mailinglists?
Why is it that swinog is the only of the many mailinglist I read
where people are unable to interfere technically correct? The
mailinglist of the swiss NETWOK OPERATORS group? Are we swiss
all plain fools? (This doesn't apply to gpstechnik only)
Sorry for my very direct wording, but the convenient versions
seem to lack on efficiency.
Tanks for your attention.
regards, Michael
--
George Orwell was an optimist.
2:33 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Michael Naef wrote:
[..]
Why is it that swinog is the only of the many
mailinglist I read
where people are unable to interfere technically correct? The
mailinglist of the swiss NETWOK OPERATORS group? Are we swiss
all plain fools? (This doesn't apply to gpstechnik only)
Because SwiNOG is one of the only lists that forces a reply-to:
swinog(a)swinog.ch. As such, stupid vacation programs who are subscribed
will nicely reply to the list and embarras themselves there instead of
only spamming the sender with that message, the latter which would go
unnoticed as on every other list. Try spamming NANOG once and you will
see what pops up :)
Greets,
Jeroen
2:55 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Hi Jeroen
On Thursday 17. January 2008, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[..]
Because SwiNOG is one of the only lists that forces a
reply-to: swinog(a)swinog.ch. As such, stupid vacation programs
who are subscribed will nicely reply to the list and embarras
themselves there instead of only spamming the sender with that
message, the latter which would go unnoticed as on every other
list.
Swinog is by far not the only one which uses this set-up (after a
swift check I would say it's about 40% of the lists I read). But
it is indeed the only one to have an autoresponder gone mad
every two weeks :-/
cheers,
Michael
--
George Orwell was an optimist.
2:41 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Hi Michael,
we have Level 1 listed the IP 195.162.162.159 spamming the list with it's
stupid autoresponder,
so if swinog uses UCEPROTECT-Level 1 the loop should be broken now.
http://www.uceprotect.net/de/rblcheck.php?ipr=195.162.162.159
Yours
Claus von Wolfhausen
UCEPROTECT-Network
3:23 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
On Thursday 17. January 2008, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote:
Hi Michael,
Hi Claus
we have Level 1 listed the IP 195.162.162.159 spamming
the
list with it's stupid autoresponder,
so if swinog uses UCEPROTECT-Level 1 the loop should be broken
now.
http://www.uceprotect.net/de/rblcheck.php?ipr=195.162.162.159
Yours
Claus von Wolfhausen
UCEPROTECT-Network
I hope you don't expect me to award you with the King's cross for
doing that. I don't like your reaction. It seems childish to me.
This specific behaviour inidcates to me one more time that
UCE-pro* is acting out of resigantion (and arrogance?) rather
than trying to be usefull. But that again just reflects the
impression I got a few years ago.
Just for to mention: This posting stands oposite to your last one
where you suggested to add spampoints rather block mail due to a
listing.
There are many blacklist which can be used as a quite efficient
and reliable sources to help tag email. Yours unfortunately
lacks the last. If you question it or not. And - I musst admit -
I resigned, myself, along time ago argueing with UCE-pro*
Have fun,
Michael
--
George Orwell was an optimist.
3:40 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Hi Michael,
I hope you don't expect me to award you with the
King's cross for
doing that. I don't like your reaction. It seems childish to me.
This specific behaviour inidcates to me one more time that
UCE-pro* is acting out of resigantion (and arrogance?) rather
than trying to be usefull. But that again just reflects the
impression I got a few years ago.
No i just tried to be helpfull, and it seems to work.
Would you preferre that stupid autoresponder had continued the loop
up till someone at GPSTECHNIK will stop it?
I guess you would not.
That said i really have no idea what your problem is.
Perhaps you don't know that i took over the UCEPROTECT-Project in
June 2007, so if you had any problems with UCEPROTECT some
years ago, then you had differences with my predecessor and not with me.
Many things have changed here since i am responsible for the project.
Yours
Claus von Wolfhausen
UCEPROTECT-Network
4:24 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Hi there
are you located in marketing or engineering?
br
simon
Claus v. Wolfhausen schrieb:
Hi Michael,
..
Claus von Wolfhausen
UCEPROTECT-Network
--
CSI Communication Systems Inc. AG
GoldNet ISP
_______________________________________________
swinog mailing list
swinog(a)lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
9:49 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote:
Perhaps you don't know that i took over the
UCEPROTECT-Project in
June 2007, so if you had any problems with UCEPROTECT some
years ago, then you had differences with my predecessor and not with
me.
Many things have changed here since i am responsible for the project.
It does seem somewhat problematic that you would list someone for having
a poorly configured auto-responder. How does that fit in with the
blacklist policy for Level1?
/Per Jessen, Herrliberg
9:41 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Dear Claus
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 02:41 +0100, Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote:
we have Level 1 listed the IP 195.162.162.159 spamming
the list with
it's
stupid autoresponder,
so if swinog uses UCEPROTECT-Level 1 the loop should be broken now.
Tell me, that you are not really blocking IPs because of some email
domains behind are throwing automatically created reponses back? You are
really comparing apple to pears. You should block email domains but not
IPs.
Let's say you have a load balanced environment with let's say 100'000
domains and 1 mio email addresses, using a /24 for email services. The
collateral damage you are taking in account if one single address is
throwing back automated responses is immense. Not to mention if you are
blocking one IP - you then have a lottery if email will get transmitted.
Sorry, but that gets me upset.
Cheerz
- Dan
27 Aug
27 Aug
2:36 p.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Once again.
It seems uceprotect has some feedback-mechanism, where an email to
a nonexistant address can automatically get the sending server
added to a blacklist. See http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=0
Pity that this also affects addresses which are not existant anymore,
and double the pity that people of course keep mailing to those, or
do not deinstall their mailforwards.
But the best things is the following. The users and their respective
domains have been anonymized, however, the IPs and ISPs NOT.
Aug 21 08:40:09 10.0.2.1 exim-mxin[95536]: 2008-08-21 08:40:09
1KW3q5-000Oqu-6m <= user(a)some-domain.ch
H=(mailgate1.webhost4u.ch) [193.138.29.15] P=esmtp S=13147
id=000f01c90358$bfd51cf0$2c01a8c0(a)user.local
user(a)some-domain.ch sends a mail. His webhoster seemingly reports
to uceprotect.
Aug 21 08:40:11 10.0.2.15 exim-dist[48224]: 2008-08-21 08:40:11
1KW3q5-000CXo-Dy <= user(a)some-domain.ch
H=(mxin001.mail.hostpoint.ch) [10.0.2.1] P=esmtp S=13618
id=000f01c90358$bfd51cf0$2c01a8c0(a)user.local
Aug 21 08:40:11 10.0.2.15 exim-dist[48239]: 2008-08-21 08:40:11
1KW3q5-000CXo-Dy => otheruser(a)some-other-domain.ch
R=local_delivery_router T=local_delivery S=13708 QT=2s DT=0s
Aug 21 08:40:12 10.0.2.15 exim-dist[48239]: 2008-08-21 08:40:12
1KW3q5-000CXo-Dy => otheruser <otheruser(a)some-other-domain.ch>
R=autoresponder T=autoresponder S=13684 QT=3s DT=1s
Aug 21 08:40:12 10.0.2.15 exim-dist[48239]: 2008-08-21 08:40:12
1KW3q5-000CXo-Dy Completed
The mail arrives at otheruser(a)some-other-domain.ch. This otheruser
uses an autoresponder which sends a mail back to user(a)some-domain.ch.
Aug 21 08:40:12 10.0.2.16 exim-mxout[21209]: 2008-08-21 08:40:12
1KW3q8-0005W5-GD <= <> H=(dist004.mail.hostpoint.ch) [10.0.2.15]
P=esmtp S=1064
Aug 21 08:40:13 10.0.2.16 exim-mxout[21210]: 2008-08-21 08:40:13
1KW3q8-0005W5-GD ** user(a)some-domain.ch R=smtp_router
T=remote_smtp: SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT
TO:<user@some-domain.ch>: host mailgate1.webhost4u.ch
[193.138.29.15]: 571 Access denied and blocklisted: 990
(V4.07-RULE-0901) Sorry your IP is blacklisted at
http://www.backscatterer.org/?ip=217.26.49.182
Sadly, user(a)some-domain.ch doesn't really exist, so the mailserver
of otheruser(a)some-other-domain.ch gets into the uceprotect blacklist.
The point of this is of course, that EVERY ISP which has some customer
which uses autoreply can be blacklisted. This is very bad.
Cheers
Seegras
--
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
"It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are
likely to end up with neither." -- Bruce Schneier
28 Aug
28 Aug
12:10 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Peter Keel schrieb:
[193.138.29.15]: 571 Access denied and blocklisted:
990
(V4.07-RULE-0901) Sorry your IP is blacklisted at
http://www.backscatterer.org/?ip=217.26.49.182
Sadly, user(a)some-domain.ch doesn't really exist, so the mailserver
of otheruser(a)some-other-domain.ch gets into the uceprotect blacklist.
The point of this is of course, that EVERY ISP which has some customer
which uses autoreply can be blacklisted. This is very bad.
Which concerns backscatterer.org, and _not_ Uceprotect. Same
organisation behind, but different policies.
And yes, autoreplies are bad. This also includes out-of-office
notifications. If you allow them out to the Internet at large, you're
almost as bad as the next pill spammer.
An admin that still allows such autoreplies should be tarred and
feathered and hunted out of the city. He/she has no business in running
a mailserver.
- -- Matthias
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFItdDVxbHw2nyi/okRAuR9AJkBFfcEqPKparoZxpjEt+M4UuLr8wCgydeK
AnG3wCrKBaxb9F4cW97j+jw=
=FyYx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8:18 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
An admin that still allows such autoreplies should be
tarred
and feathered and hunted out of the city. He/she has no
business in running a mailserver.
You were right, if a mail-admin was actually the person with the right to
decide on the auto-reply policy. Unfortunately in most organizations, he is
not. We should all start to teach management the ways of the
forc...aehmm...internet.
Kind regards,
Viktor
9:02 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
* on the Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Matthias Leisi wrote:
Hm, I'm not so sure. However the company using this seems to have
technical difficulties anyway, and I can't reach them by mail.
[193.138.29.15]: 571 Access denied and blocklisted: 990
Which concerns backscatterer.org, and _not_ Uceprotect. Same
organisation behind, but different policies. And yes, autoreplies are bad. This also includes
out-of-office
notifications. If you allow them out to the Internet at large, you're
almost as bad as the next pill spammer.
Try to explain that to the users at large and _any_ management.
Cheers
Seegras
--
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
"It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are
likely to end up with neither." -- Bruce Schneier
29 Aug
29 Aug
8:34 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Peter Keel schrieb:
"Do you want to send email, or do you want to send Out-of-Office replies?"
- -- Matthias
And yes,
autoreplies are bad. This also includes out-of-office
notifications. If you allow them out to the Internet at large, you're
almost as bad as the next pill spammer.
Try to explain that to the users at large and _any_ management. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFIt5h+xbHw2nyi/okRAnbSAKCZwq2vEHGbdkLWFdUjvHDoZlCkDQCfZgT/
XB5HpBEhEQrSdALcq8Dvuk0=
=r9AG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
17 Jan
17 Jan
3:01 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
*arrrrrrrghhh*
I'll rather not try postmaster. It's probably time to go for a
sleep.
----
This is the mail system at host mxpolicygw2.as8833.net.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
<abuse(a)gpstechnik.ch>ch>: host psa1.as8833.net[195.162.162.159]
said: 550 sorry,
no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17) (in reply to RCPT TO
command)
--
George Orwell was an optimist.
9:22 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Salut,
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:01:38AM +0100, Michael Naef wrote:
*arrrrrrrghhh*
<abuse(a)gpstechnik.ch>ch>: host psa1.as8833.net[195.162.162.159]
said: 550 sorry,
no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17) (in reply to RCPT TO
command)
This has been a known problem for a long time already:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/detail.php?domain=gpstechnik.ch&submi…
Sometimes I'm tempted to use rfc-ignorant.org as a blacklist.
Tonnerre
9:51 a.m.
New subject: The truth about UCEPROTECT-Blocklists
Tonnerre LOMBARD wrote:
This has been a known problem for a long time
already:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/detail.php?domain=gpstechnik.ch&submi…
Sometimes I'm tempted to use rfc-ignorant.org as a blacklist.
I know you won't, but be careful anyway - whois.rfc-ignorant also lists
165 TLDs (.dk, .de, .eu ...) due to "no WHOIS server or incomplete data
in server".
/Per Jessen, Herrliberg
11:30 a.m.
New subject: The truth about cheap sysadmins
On the Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:01:38AM +0100, Michael Naef blubbered:
Hoi Michi, hoi Swinoggers.
*arrrrrrrghhh*
I'll rather not try postmaster. It's probably time to go for a
sleep.
Oh come on. This whole case made my day. =:-)
(Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude)
-----8<-----
This is the mail system at host
mxpolicygw2.as8833.net.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
<abuse(a)gpstechnik.ch>ch>: host psa1.as8833.net[195.162.162.159]
said: 550 sorry,
no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17) (in reply to RCPT TO
command)
----->8-----
Can't help it but:
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
AFAIR, postmaster should work. It's been almost two years, since
I was the mail-hosli there.
CU, Venty
--
Ungenügender Speicher zur Anzeige der
12:06 p.m.
New subject: The truth about cheap sysadmins
Hello,
On 17.01.2008, at 11:30, Martin Ebnoether wrote:
Can't help it but:
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
AFAIR, postmaster should work. It's been almost two years, since
I was the mail-hosli there.
Hmmm, if I'm looking at what happens if you're trying to send a
message to abuse(a)gpstechnik.ch I wouldn't be too surprised if you'd
get a "mailbox over quota" for the postmaster(a)gpstechnik.ch account.....
CU
Tobias
5387
days inactive
5612
days old
20 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Claus v. Wolfhausen -
CSI/GoldNet Simon Spring -
Daniel Kamm -
f.jachiet＠gpstechnik.ch -
Jeroen Massar -
Martin Ebnoether -
Matthias Leisi -
Michael Naef -
Per Jessen -
Peter Keel -
Tobias Göller -
Tonnerre LOMBARD -
Viktor Steinmann