Extreme spam testing

Tue Dec 23 00:33:21 UTC 2003

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Vadim Antonov wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Andy Dills wrote:
>
> > Hmm...actually, YOUR spam is MY problem. That's how this works.
> >
> > I applaud njabl.
>
> Then you've never been on receiving end of their (and their ilk)
> viligantine "justice"  for no reason other than being in the same block of
> addresses as some hacked windoze host (NOT on your network, mind you) and
> using business-grade DSL.

Oh, sure have. Spews has listed an entire /19 of ours before, merely
because of a multi-stage relay (customer had an open relay configured to
dump everything to our mailserver).

NJABL isn't Spews. To my knowledge, NJABL doesn't write off entire
subnets...thus the need for scanning so many IPs.

It's possible you were grouped in with dynamic IP DSL...but from the
njabl.org website: http://www.njabl.org/listing.html

"2. If an IP is listed because we think it's in a dial-up range, show us
that it not. If it really is a dial-up, it'll most likely remain in the
list, but we may add non-dial-up range IP's to the list thinking they are
dial-up range IP's. In these cases, we'll be happy to correct the error."

> I wish you have an opportunity to try that being YOUR problem, _then_
> we'll hear your opinion on spam nazi.

Having used NJABL for well over a year, the collateral damage is almost
nil.

I'm well aware of the issues involved. I still think proactive scanning is
better than reactive scanning. I'm also completely aware that others will
disagree with that sentiment. It's not really something that's worth our
time debating, we may as well debate abortion. You're either offended that
somebody is probing your systems or you aren't. No amount of conjecture is
going to change an opinion on this issue. But I felt somebody needed to
stick up for them, lest people think there is some sort of consensus.

Andy

---
Andy Dills
Xecunet, Inc.
www.xecu.net
301-682-9972
---