My email domain keeps getting *blacklisted* on
account of (as far as I'm able to determine)
the fact that my Domain-Name Hosting provider
falls under i.e.

"..is part of AS 16276 OVH FR and the Networks
167.114.128.0/18

Reverse DNS (PTR) exists and claimes to be:
sohsu1.dns77.com

Forward DNS for sohsu1.dns77.com is 167.114.138.246

This IP is not registered at ips.whitelisted.org"

I got this in a UCEPROTECT report from a store
whose email to me I could not reply to and who
stand to lose money on account of it (I stand to
lose a lot of time!!).

I put this SCAM in the same drawer as spam phonecalls
to avoid which one has to register oneself on a
white-list of people who do NOT want unsolicited
phonecalls. Seems to me that it's those who DO want
them that should have to register. It all smells like
shit. What are my options to avoid crap like this?

--
N2M (Notice To Merchants): if any part of our communication before,
during or after a transaction with you is routed to any 3rd party like
Googmole or Faecesbuch or such other without my explicit consent each
time then you will learn a lot about me and about marketing, but you
will never smell my money.

On 07/09/2023 18:09, bad sector wrote:

> I got this in a UCEPROTECT report from a store
> whose email to me I could not reply to and who
> stand to lose money on account of it (I stand to
> lose a lot of time!!).
>
> I put this SCAM in the same drawer as spam phonecalls
> to avoid which one has to register oneself on a
> white-list of people who do NOT want unsolicited
> phonecalls.

No, this is more of extortion like malware that encrypts your files and
want bitcoins to decrypt them (if you are lucky).

They do break to the tradition where you should have a mechanism to be
able to be cleared from the blocklist and there are many who do not look
kindly at them.

> What are my options to avoid crap like this?

Use a big email service provider like protonmail, gmail, office365, you
still will be paying for them to host your mail with your domain.

--
//Aho

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 12:09:22 -0400, bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
> My email domain keeps getting *blacklisted* on
> account of (as far as I'm able to determine)
> the fact that my Domain-Name Hosting provider
> falls under i.e.
>
> "..is part of AS 16276 OVH FR and the Networks
> 167.114.128.0/18
>
> Reverse DNS (PTR) exists and claimes to be:
> sohsu1.dns77.com
>
> Forward DNS for sohsu1.dns77.com is 167.114.138.246
>
> This IP is not registered at ips.whitelisted.org"
>
> I got this in a UCEPROTECT report from a store
> whose email to me I could not reply to and who
> stand to lose money on account of it (I stand to
> lose a lot of time!!).
>
> I put this SCAM in the same drawer as spam phonecalls
> to avoid which one has to register oneself on a
> white-list of people who do NOT want unsolicited
> phonecalls. Seems to me that it's those who DO want
> them that should have to register. It all smells like
> shit. What are my options to avoid crap like this?

The uceprotect block list service has existed for decades.

For level 1 listings (the ip address sending the spam), it'slisted when at least
50 messages hit spamtrap addresses within the last 7 days. If it has generic
reverse dns or no reverse dns it gets listed every time it sends email to a
spamtrap.

Level 1 listed ip addresses will automatically be removed seven days after the
spam stops.

For level 2, it requires a number of ip addresses withing the same netrange
to hit level 1 ...
Allocations smaller than / 27 are automatically listed immediately in level 2 if a single impact has occurred, a / 26 network is listed for at least 2 impacts, and a / 25 for at least 3 impacts
Based on the / 24 network with 4 or more impacts, the further automatic escalation is calculated using the following formula:
Netmask - 1 = ((netmask value + 1) + (netmask value +3))

For level 3, the entire ASN is listed which requires that at least 50 ip addresses
are at level 1.

The people who choose to use the uceprotect blocklist do so because they are tired
of their mailing systems being overwhelmed by spam.

For you, convince your isp to take action as their failure to stop their customers
sending spam is hurting their other customers, or switch isps, or convince the
people using the block list that your messages are more important than their
desire to reduce the spam they have to deal with.

In the case of 167.114.138.246, it shows your ip address has not sent spam, but
AS16276 (OVH Hosting, Inc.) have 816 ip addresses that have managed to hit
spamtraps used by uceprotect 4534 times in the last 7 days. That's from
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php

I started using nomail.afraid.org for usenet back when the swen email worm
filled my inbox at my isp faster than I could download the messages.

$ host nomail.afraid.org
nomail.afraid.org has address 127.0.212.212
nomail.afraid.org mail is handled by 10 nirvana.admins.ws.
I set it up that way with permission from the uceprotect operator.

So anyone harvesting addresses from usenet is sending to a spamtrap operated
by uceprotect. That's just one of many spamtraps that are operated by the
uceprotect block list.

Other then setting up that forwarding to the spamtrap, my only affiliation
with uceprotect is as someone who uses it to reduce the spam I see.

Is it unfair that customers who don't send spam get their email blocked? Yes.
It's also unfair to everyone on the internet that your isp allows so much spam
to be sent.

Most isps now block outgoing connections to port 25, except from customers who
have registered with them as running a mail server. Those that don't deserve
to be blocked from sending email.

The good thing about getting blocked by uceprotect is that the blocking will
stop when the spam stops. Many other blocklists do not have removal policies.
Once listed, it's permanent.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 15:24:30 -0400, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:

> On 07/09/2023 18:09, bad sector wrote:
>
>> I got this in a UCEPROTECT report from a store
>> whose email to me I could not reply to and who
>> stand to lose money on account of it (I stand to
>> lose a lot of time!!).
>>
>> I put this SCAM in the same drawer as spam phonecalls
>> to avoid which one has to register oneself on a
>> white-list of people who do NOT want unsolicited
>> phonecalls.
>
> No, this is more of extortion like malware that encrypts your files and
> want bitcoins to decrypt them (if you are lucky).
>
> They do break to the tradition where you should have a mechanism to be
> able to be cleared from the blocklist and there are many who do not look
> kindly at them.

There are many other people like me who believe an isp that doesn't do anything
to block the spam flowing from their customers shouldn't be allowed to send
any email.

>> What are my options to avoid crap like this?
>
> Use a big email service provider like protonmail, gmail, office365, you
> still will be paying for them to host your mail with your domain.

Best option would be to convince the isp to drop customers who intentionally send
spam, and to block output connections to port 25 except from customers who haven't
requested that port 25 output not being blocked. That would stop the spam from the
clueless people who shouldn't be sending email directly from their systems.

The people who use the uceprotect mailing list to filter out the spam have chosen
to do so, because they are tired of all of the spam.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

On 9/7/23 16:09, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 12:09:22 -0400, bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net>
> wrote:
>> My email domain keeps getting *blacklisted* on
>> account of (as far as I'm able to determine)
>> the fact that my Domain-Name Hosting provider
>> falls under i.e.
>>
>> "..is part of AS 16276 OVH FR and the Networks
>> 167.114.128.0/18
>>
>> Reverse DNS (PTR) exists and claimes to be:
>> sohsu1.dns77.com
>>
>> Forward DNS for sohsu1.dns77.com is 167.114.138.246
>>
>> This IP is not registered at ips.whitelisted.org"
>>
>> I got this in a UCEPROTECT report from a store
>> whose email to me I could not reply to and who
>> stand to lose money on account of it (I stand to
>> lose a lot of time!!).
>>
>> I put this SCAM in the same drawer as spam phonecalls
>> to avoid which one has to register oneself on a
>> white-list of people who do NOT want unsolicited
>> phonecalls. Seems to me that it's those who DO want
>> them that should have to register. It all smells like
>> shit. What are my options to avoid crap like this?
>
> The uceprotect block list service has existed for decades.

You're telling *me*? I've been up against them from time to time for
decades too, yet I have NEVER sent any spam anywhere.

> For level 1 listings (the ip address sending the spam), it'slisted when
> at least
> 50 messages hit spamtrap addresses within the last 7 days. If it has
> generic
> reverse dns or no reverse dns it gets listed every time it sends email to a
> spamtrap.
>
> Level 1 listed ip addresses will automatically be removed seven days
> after the
> spam stops.

I don't know what spam-trap criteriae ARE, almost ALL people I know
don't either. Instead of bouncing MY emails why don't they email me with
the details that caused MY email to trap? And IF it's not MY email then
block the guilty IP address but not others at whichever single ISP, not
to mention chains of ISP's.

> For level 2, it requires a number of ip addresses withing the same netrange
> to hit level 1 ...
> Allocations smaller than / 27 are automatically listed immediately in
> level 2 if a single impact has occurred, a / 26 network is listed for at
> least 2 impacts, and a / 25 for at least 3 impacts
> Based on the / 24 network with 4 or more impacts, the further automatic
> escalation is calculated using the following formula:
> Netmask - 1 = ((netmask value + 1) + (netmask value +3))
>
> For level 3, the entire ASN is listed which requires that at least 50 ip
> addresses
> are at level 1.
>
> The people who choose to use the uceprotect blocklist do so because they
> are tired
> of their mailing systems being overwhelmed by spam.

So if I get spam from some mookmook in timbucktoo then it's ok to nuke
the whole continent; sickening microcancerish bullshit.

> For you, convince your isp to take action as their failure to stop their
> customers

Yeah, right, my yearly equivalent of a bud-light 3-pack will really
swing the pendulum. At one time it was pointed out that it was maybe
smarter to have a dedicated rather than a shared server, even without
being mail-server knowlegable I figured that I should pay more for a
dedicated server. Did't make any difference though, none at all.

> In the case of 167.114.138.246, it shows your ip address has not sent
> spam, but
> AS16276 (OVH Hosting, Inc.) have 816 ip addresses that have managed to hit
> spamtraps used by uceprotect 4534 times in the last 7 days. That's from
> http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php

My "ISP" is Save-On-Hosting dot com. How namy of those spam trappers
originated from THEM?

> I started using nomail.afraid.org for usenet back when the swen email worm
> filled my inbox at my isp faster than I could download the messages.
>
> $ host nomail.afraid.org
> nomail.afraid.org has address 127.0.212.212
> nomail.afraid.org mail is handled by 10 nirvana.admins.ws.
> I set it up that way with permission from the uceprotect operator.
>
> So anyone harvesting addresses from usenet is sending to a spamtrap
> operated
> by uceprotect. That's just one of many spamtraps that are operated by the
> uceprotect block list.
>
> Other then setting up that forwarding to the spamtrap, my only affiliation
> with uceprotect is as someone who uses it to reduce the spam I see.
>
> Is it unfair that customers who don't send spam get their email blocked?
> Yes.
> It's also unfair to everyone on the internet that your isp allows so
> much spam
> to be sent.

Whose rights prvail, those who want spam-free mail or those who want to
send non-spam mail without being prejudiced against? Is my right to
communicate less than another's to receive no spam?

> Most isps now block outgoing connections to port 25, except from
> customers who
> have registered with them as running a mail server. Those that don't
> deserve
> to be blocked from sending email.

I have no idea what port 25 does, nor do I care! My ISP sets up a
dedicated mail server in conjunction with my hosted web site and that's
what I pay for. If anyone wants to blacklist ME for spam they should
prove that MY server has originated spam or shut the fuck up and vanish
from the list of breathing entities! ANYONE accused of ANY wrong doing
has the right (at least in countries of 2-legged humanoids) to be
presented with details AND evidence without which defense is impossible.

> The good thing about getting blocked by uceprotect is that the blocking
> will
> stop when the spam stops. Many other blocklists do not have removal
> policies.
> Once listed, it's permanent.

How sweet, not much help though when I just wasted a day trying to
complete already initiated commercial exchanges essential to my farming
activitioes in time before winter. In the particular case, today, I had
twenty grand's worth of engine parts at various stations in a shipping
system in various states of acceptability etc. etc. etc. How about MY
right to communicate?

The self-appointed netcops they should erect sanctions against the spam
originators on a much more specific level through international
cooperation and legistlation. As it is I agree with J.O. Aho, when you
blacklist and demand money to be expeditiously unlisted that's called
extortion and is a crime in most human circles. Just like the telephone
spam-lists, I will have NO PART OF IT.

--
N2M (Notice To Merchants): if any part of our communication before,
during or after a transaction with you is routed to any 3rd party like
Googmole or Faecesbuch or such other without my explicit consent each
time then you will learn a lot about me and about marketing, but you
will never smell my money.

On 9/7/23 15:24, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 07/09/2023 18:09, bad sector wrote:
>
>> I got this in a UCEPROTECT report from a store
>> whose email to me I could not reply to and who
>> stand to lose money on account of it (I stand to
>> lose a lot of time!!).
>>
>> I put this SCAM in the same drawer as spam phonecalls
>> to avoid which one has to register oneself on a
>> white-list of people who do NOT want unsolicited
>> phonecalls.
>
> No, this is more of extortion like malware that encrypts your files and
> want bitcoins to decrypt them (if you are lucky).
>
> They do break to the tradition where you should have a mechanism to be
> able to be cleared from the blocklist and there are many who do not look
> kindly at them.

Being (then) 'built' I once worked for the mob to pay for my tuition.
Yeah, THE freakin' maffia and I didn't even know it. It took me about a
week to figure out what I had stepped into and just left but THAT work
had the same SMELL as these whitelist operators (never free if in a hurry).

>> What are my options to avoid crap like this?
>
> Use a big email service provider like protonmail, gmail, office365, you
> still will be paying for them to host your mail with your domain.

It's really weird that one of the very reasons I like having my own mail
server is exactlty a way to protect against spam. I set up (unlimited)
email addresses or forwaders with the cPanel front end and use dedicated
ones for different contacts. If one address gets spam I know who leaked!
Trying to get a deal like that from the other retail chiselers would
cost me $5 per address per week but my name is Santa Claus!

Getting back to blacklisting, there's something that bugs me. I am
however speaking as a server-ignorant end-user which also means outside
of the techno tunnel. SPAM as such cannot be anon, or it wouldn't work
because its purpose is to sell something so the victimn has to have a
way to respond and THAT is surely traceable. On the other hand freedom
of speech does not exist if anon speech does not. So what are we looking
at here, a war on freedom of speech which is not only a right but a
civic duty, or a war on spam which isn't anon anyway? Food for thought,
doesn't the right to absolute freedom of speech far outweight the right
to no spam? And by that I don't mean to tolerate spam but to call a
spade a spade.

--
Anonymity is the sole reliable witness of real society, be the image
good or bad, and of free speech, two things without which the truth
cannot be known but the intent of those opposing them can.

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 17:43:05 -0400, bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
> I don't know what spam-trap criteriae ARE, almost ALL people I know
> don't either. Instead of bouncing MY emails why don't they email me with
> the details that caused MY email to trap? And IF it's not MY email then
> block the guilty IP address but not others at whichever single ISP, not
> to mention chains of ISP's.

The uceprotect block list doesn't actually block any email. The who are receiving
the email, or the administrator's running their mail servers choose to use the
uceprotect list. It's clearly explained how it works on their website, so those
who are choosing to use it are doing so knowing full well that innocent customers
of spam enabling isps will be caught up in it.

> So if I get spam from some mookmook in timbucktoo then it's ok to nuke
> the whole continent; sickening microcancerish bullshit.

As the recipient, that's up to you. Sending email does not give the sender the
right to force others to accept it. The recipient has the choice of whether or
not to accept it.

> Yeah, right, my yearly equivalent of a bud-light 3-pack will really
> swing the pendulum. At one time it was pointed out that it was maybe
> smarter to have a dedicated rather than a shared server, even without
> being mail-server knowlegable I figured that I should pay more for a
> dedicated server. Did't make any difference though, none at all.

It made no difference because the isp hosting it does nothing to stop spam from
it's other customers. The recipients of the email using uceprotect have chosen
to discard all email from the isp. That's their right.

>> In the case of 167.114.138.246, it shows your ip address has not sent
>> spam, but
>> AS16276 (OVH Hosting, Inc.) have 816 ip addresses that have managed to hit
>> spamtraps used by uceprotect 4534 times in the last 7 days. That's from
>> http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php
>
> My "ISP" is Save-On-Hosting dot com. How namy of those spam trappers
> originated from THEM?

From https://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php ...
"UCEPROTECT-Network´s core database is fed by a cluster of more than 50 UCEPROTECT-Servers (Executive-Members) located in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Canada and Australia."

> Whose rights prvail, those who want spam-free mail or those who want to
> send non-spam mail without being prejudiced against? Is my right to
> communicate less than another's to receive no spam?

Uceprotect doesn't stop you from sending email. The people you're sending to
chose not to accept the email because OVH generates so much spam. The recipient
has the right to block email from anyone, for any reason.

>> Most isps now block outgoing connections to port 25, except from
>> customers who
>> have registered with them as running a mail server. Those that don't
>> deserve
>> to be blocked from sending email.
>
> I have no idea what port 25 does, nor do I care! My ISP sets up a
> dedicated mail server in conjunction with my hosted web site and that's
> what I pay for. If anyone wants to blacklist ME for spam they should
> prove that MY server has originated spam or shut the fuck up and vanish
> from the list of breathing entities! ANYONE accused of ANY wrong doing
> has the right (at least in countries of 2-legged humanoids) to be
> presented with details AND evidence without which defense is impossible.

When you send an email it goes to tcp port 25 of the recipients smtp server.
If the isp blocks all outbound connections to tcp port 25, except for customers
who request it, it stops all of the other customers from sending email directly
from their computers.

>> The good thing about getting blocked by uceprotect is that the blocking
>> will
>> stop when the spam stops. Many other blocklists do not have removal
>> policies.
>> Once listed, it's permanent.
>
> How sweet, not much help though when I just wasted a day trying to
> complete already initiated commercial exchanges essential to my farming
> activitioes in time before winter. In the particular case, today, I had
> twenty grand's worth of engine parts at various stations in a shipping
> system in various states of acceptability etc. etc. etc. How about MY
> right to communicate?

Your "right to send email" does not override the recipients right to refuse
it.

> The self-appointed netcops they should erect sanctions against the spam
> originators on a much more specific level through international
> cooperation and legistlation. As it is I agree with J.O. Aho, when you
> blacklist and demand money to be expeditiously unlisted that's called
> extortion and is a crime in most human circles. Just like the telephone
> spam-lists, I will have NO PART OF IT.

There are block lists that only list the ip addresses sending spam. That's
not how uceprotect works. The purpose of uceprotect is to hold bad individual
spammers and the isps hosting large numbers of them responsible.

If they lose enough customers, they'll implement procedures that responsible
isps use to stop or at least massively cut down on the spam, or go out of
business.

Complain somewhere where customers or shareholders of ovh might pay attention that
because ovh apparently doesn't make any effort to block spam from it's networks,
they are not suitable to pay for hosting a mail server.

Complaining on usenet that the people you're trying to send email to prefer to
block all email from your isp by using the uceprotect list of known spam sources
won't help you.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 20:01:02 -0400, bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
> Getting back to blacklisting, there's something that bugs me. I am
> however speaking as a server-ignorant end-user which also means outside
> of the techno tunnel. SPAM as such cannot be anon, or it wouldn't work
> because its purpose is to sell something so the victimn has to have a
> way to respond and THAT is surely traceable. On the other hand freedom
> of speech does not exist if anon speech does not. So what are we looking
> at here, a war on freedom of speech which is not only a right but a
> civic duty, or a war on spam which isn't anon anyway? Food for thought,
> doesn't the right to absolute freedom of speech far outweight the right
> to no spam? And by that I don't mean to tolerate spam but to call a
> spade a spade.

The bulk of spam comes from botnets with the majority of the ip addressess
sending the spam being clueless windows users whose systems are infected with
malware.

There are sales people who hire spam sending services to send a million or more
messages to "select lists". As long as they think they'll get sales that way,
they'll keep hiring spammers. Doesn't matter they they actually get any sales
or not, just whether they think they will or not.

While the email may or may not have a from address, with spam it's usually forged.

Most spam is promoting scams looking for yet another sucker to take money from,
or trying to spread malware for various purposes such as bulding their botnet.

While the receiving server knows which ip address connected to it, that address may
or may not get added to the headers in the email message depending on how the server
is configured.

A block list doesn't stop you from sending your email. The recipient is the one
blocking you by configuring their system not to accept messages from you.

You have no right to force the recipient to store your message on their computer.
It's their property you're trying to use when you send an email to them.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

On 9/7/23 20:44, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 20:01:02 -0400, bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net>
> wrote:
>> Getting back to blacklisting, there's something that bugs me. I am
>> however speaking as a server-ignorant end-user which also means outside
>> of the techno tunnel. SPAM as such cannot be anon, or it wouldn't work
>> because its purpose is to sell something so the victimn has to have a
>> way to respond and THAT is surely traceable. On the other hand freedom
>> of speech does not exist if anon speech does not. So what are we looking
>> at here, a war on freedom of speech which is not only a right but a
>> civic duty, or a war on spam which isn't anon anyway? Food for thought,
>> doesn't the right to absolute freedom of speech far outweight the right
>> to no spam?  And by that I don't mean to tolerate spam but to call a
>> spade a spade.
>
> The bulk of spam comes from botnets with the majority of the ip addressess
> sending the spam being clueless windows users whose systems are infected
> with
> malware.
>
> There are sales people who hire spam sending services to send a million
> or more
> messages to "select lists". As long as they think they'll get sales that
> way,
> they'll keep hiring spammers. Doesn't matter they they actually get any
> sales
> or not, just whether they think they will or not.
>
> While the email may or may not have a from address, with spam it's
> usually forged.
>
> Most spam is promoting scams looking for yet another sucker to take
> money from,
> or trying to spread malware for various purposes such as bulding their
> botnet.
>
> While the receiving server knows which ip address connected to it, that
> address may
> or may not get added to the headers in the email message depending on
> how the server
> is configured.
>
> A block list doesn't stop you from sending your email. The recipient is
> the one
> blocking you by configuring their system not to accept messages from you.
>
> You have no right to force the recipient to store your message on their
> computer.
> It's their property you're trying to use when you send an email to them.
>
> Regards, Dave Hodgins

I cannot contest the individual recipiet's right to
control his/her mailbox AT THAT LEVEL, but if we're
talking regulatory moves (which IMO is the proper way
to handle offenders) then the debate shifts to balancing
rights agains other rights.

As for the receivers doing the controlling that isn't
exactly accurate becasue most of them delegate blindly
to their ISP having no clue as to what innocent people
get burned and even less of a clue about any freedom
issues not to mention covert trampling on them by as
many stinking deep states and voices-behind-curtains
as there are flags on the planet.

Finaly I have already advised my supplier most affeted
by MY problems of today that I am done dealing with
them seeing that it's a waste of my very precious time.
Filtering could maybe best be done on local machines
based on CONTENT which is really the only way to id
spam. Alas their IT spec has no problem convincing them
that blacklisting is the only way; I will convince them
that it's the way to lose at least one customer.

That said I have also WARNED my domain hoster and
am looking for alternatives; question is what do I
get where and for how much?

Dave Hodgins writes:
> While the email may or may not have a from address, with spam it's
> usually forged.

Most of the spam I see does not have a forged from address. The headers
are all valid and correct, and the from line is that of the user of the
machine. Evidently spammers have discovered that their targets only
read the HTML body and are not put off by receiving a message purporting
to be from their bank from nadia211@gmail.com.
--
John Hasler
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

On 2023-09-07 20:01, bad sector wrote:
> On 9/7/23 15:24, J.O. Aho wrote:
>> On 07/09/2023 18:09, bad sector wrote:

....

>>> What are my options to avoid crap like this?
>>
>> Use a big email service provider like protonmail, gmail, office365,
>> you still will be paying for them to host your mail with your domain.
>
> It's really weird that one of the very reasons I like having my own mail
> server is exactlty a way to protect against spam. I set up (unlimited)
> email addresses or forwaders with the cPanel front end and use dedicated
> ones for different contacts. If one address gets spam I know who leaked!
> Trying to get a deal like that from the other retail chiselers would
> cost me $5 per address per week but my name is Santa Claus!

Most people don't ever need that.

> Getting back to blacklisting, there's something that bugs me. I am
> however speaking as a server-ignorant end-user which also means outside
> of the techno tunnel. SPAM as such cannot be anon, or it wouldn't work
> because its purpose is to sell something so the victimn has to have a
> way to respond and THAT is surely traceable. On the other hand freedom
> of speech does not exist if anon speech does not. So what are we looking
> at here, a war on freedom of speech which is not only a right but a
> civic duty, or a war on spam which isn't anon anyway? Food for thought,
> doesn't the right to absolute freedom of speech far outweight the right
> to no spam?  And by that I don't mean to tolerate spam but to call a
> spade a spade.

There are many kinds of spam.

On the spam that tries to sell you "something", there is always a way to
identify them, because obviously you need to contact them somehow to buy
whatever. BUT, you need international cooperation, police forces and
courts. ALL countries.

So, if all governments wanted, they could kill spam by simply putting in
prison every spammer they find, one by one.

We are not going to get that cooperation, so forget it.

Also, the received headers can be investigated. The last one is always
true, because it is your own mail server. So you trace backwards, one by
one... at some point, you need police and court cooperation from the
countries traversed by the mail, you need the police going to that
server and demanding the logs by force. In the end, after a lot of
money, you can find someone to put in prison. But not all countries are
going to collaborate...

Certainly, it may be coming from a compromised machine of some poor sod.
Well, he must be fined for having a machine compromised, for not paying
maintenance, for having faulty providers like M$.

After you fine a few thousands, people will take care.

But we will not get that level of international cooperation.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 21:42:42 -0400, bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:
> I cannot contest the individual recipiet's right to
> control his/her mailbox AT THAT LEVEL, but if we're
> talking regulatory moves (which IMO is the proper way
> to handle offenders) then the debate shifts to balancing
> rights agains other rights.

Regulatory moves would require global agreement and enforcement. Good luck with
that.

> As for the receivers doing the controlling that isn't
> exactly accurate becasue most of them delegate blindly
> to their ISP having no clue as to what innocent people
> get burned and even less of a clue about any freedom
> issues not to mention covert trampling on them by as
> many stinking deep states and voices-behind-curtains
> as there are flags on the planet.

The isp has to learn about uceprotect and how to implement it. As explained at
https://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=5
"NOTE: By using Level 3 for blocking, be prepared to occasionally lose some required mails too. DO NOT BLAME US, YOU HAVE BEEN FOREWARNED!

The recommended use of Level 3 is incorporating it into a scoring system, to give e.g. 2 points on a ‘match’ where 5 or more points trigger a spam tag."

They chose to be a BOFH and use level 3 for rejecting the mail.

> Finaly I have already advised my supplier most affeted
> by MY problems of today that I am done dealing with
> them seeing that it's a waste of my very precious time.
> Filtering could maybe best be done on local machines
> based on CONTENT which is really the only way to id
> spam. Alas their IT spec has no problem convincing them
> that blacklisting is the only way; I will convince them
> that it's the way to lose at least one customer.
>
> That said I have also WARNED my domain hoster and
> am looking for alternatives; question is what do I
> get where and for how much?

Filtering on content has more overhead, more false positives, and uses more cpu
and disk space than rejecting early in the smtp process before the body of the
email message is sent.

What it sounds like you are advocating is taking away the right of owners of the
servers to run them as they see fit. I don't think that's what you mean, but that's
how it reads.

Any hosting service you consider buying, check the ip address at a site such as
https://www.dnsbl.info/dnsbl-list.php
It does a lookup of the ip address with many of the publicly accessible lists.

The uceprotect list is the only one I know of that will list an entire isp.

As uceprotect is the only one listing 167.114.138.246, and only in the level 3
list, it's possible the recipient has configured their server to block messages
from an ip address if it's listed in level 3 and the reverse dns looks generic.

With a name like sohsu1.dns77.com, it looks like a generic customer address, not
an smtp server for dns77.com.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 22:36:30 -0400, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> Also, the received headers can be investigated. The last one is always
> true, because it is your own mail server. So you trace backwards, one by
> one... at some point, you need police and court cooperation from the
> countries traversed by the mail, you need the police going to that
> server and demanding the logs by force. In the end, after a lot of
> money, you can find someone to put in prison. But not all countries are
> going to collaborate...

Not all servers keep logs, and those that do have limits on how long it's kept
for, so speed would be another problem to deal with.

> Certainly, it may be coming from a compromised machine of some poor sod.
> Well, he must be fined for having a machine compromised, for not paying
> maintenance, for having faulty providers like M$.
> After you fine a few thousands, people will take care.

Nah. They'll just band together to replace the government with one that doesn't
do that.

> But we will not get that level of international cooperation.

That's true!

Regards, Dave Hodgins

On 9/7/23 22:36, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-09-07 20:01, bad sector wrote:
>> On 9/7/23 15:24, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>> On 07/09/2023 18:09, bad sector wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> What are my options to avoid crap like this?
>>>
>>> Use a big email service provider like protonmail, gmail, office365,
>>> you still will be paying for them to host your mail with your domain.
>>
>> It's really weird that one of the very reasons I like having my own
>> mail server is exactlty a way to protect against spam. I set up
>> (unlimited) email addresses or forwaders with the cPanel front end and
>> use dedicated ones for different contacts. If one address gets spam I
>> know who leaked! Trying to get a deal like that from the other retail
>> chiselers would cost me $5 per address per week but my name is Santa
>> Claus!
>
> Most people don't ever need that.

I tried it and never looked back. The first time
I write to an address that I might write to more
in the future it's with a dedicated email. If soon
after that I get spam on it I know that either the
guy is too stupid to lock his database or, much
more likely with merchants, he'll sell his own
mother's diary if someone will give him a dollar
for a book full of blow jobs for half that.

>> Getting back to blacklisting, there's something that bugs me. I am
>> however speaking as a server-ignorant end-user which also means
>> outside of the techno tunnel. SPAM as such cannot be anon, or it
>> wouldn't work because its purpose is to sell something so the victimn
>> has to have a way to respond and THAT is surely traceable. On the
>> other hand freedom of speech does not exist if anon speech does not.
>> So what are we looking at here, a war on freedom of speech which is
>> not only a right but a civic duty, or a war on spam which isn't anon
>> anyway? Food for thought, doesn't the right to absolute freedom of
>> speech far outweight the right to no spam?  And by that I don't mean
>> to tolerate spam but to call a spade a spade.
>
> There are many kinds of spam.
>
> On the spam that tries to sell you "something", there is always a way to
> identify them, because obviously you need to contact them somehow to buy
> whatever. BUT, you need international cooperation, police forces and
> courts. ALL countries.

Maybe phone calls are easier to trace but the nospam phonelists seem to
be working (although in reverse, the list should be of those who don't
mind unsolicited calls). The living world is governed by two forces: the
predatory principle and natural selection. Undertstand those two well
and you have the answer to many problems. Raise the risk level in
comparison to the potential reward, a few public hangings might help but
not many would be needed. In the long term, if necessary, natural
selection will weed out the chaff before it reproduces and makes more of
its unrequested self.

> ...
> But we will not get that level of international cooperation.

Not likely, until you nuke the ones that don't
haul their share.

BTW #1
red-pencil: I meant my engine parts supplier,
the guy whose emails I could not respond to.

BTW #2
how much spam begins with Re: and includes
pages of quoted text from the originator who
is now the addressee? Who are designing them
spam traps or am I a harsh judge of character?

If it's down to bare knuckles I can play that
too, someone blacklists me and I blacklist
them, and then we see who resumes the cockroach
diet first. In 6 hours I killed 4 grand's worth
of business and the supplier 'knows' it cause I
canceled a previous order.

--
"Restriction of free thought and free speech is
the most dangerous of all subversions". Justice
William O. Douglas

On 9/7/23 23:12, David W. Hodgins wrote:

> What it sounds like you are advocating is taking away the right of
> owners of the
> servers to run them as they see fit. I don't think that's what you mean,
> but that's
> how it reads.

And running servers as they see fit sounds a bit
like Zukerbarfs' business-model rhetoric the other
day responding to Canada's legislsation proposals.

> Any hosting service you consider buying, check the ip address at a site
> such as
> https://www.dnsbl.info/dnsbl-list.php
> It does a lookup of the ip address with many of the publicly accessible
> lists.

Good point but it's a bit of 'buyer-beware' philo
which IMO is obsolete in civilized societies. Do
we allow unscrupolous surgeons to leave patients
to stich themselves up? Then why should we allow
unscrupolous anyone to act similarly?

--
People used to be more polite when dueling was legal.

On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 00:10:18 -0400, bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net> wrote:

> On 9/7/23 23:12, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>
>> What it sounds like you are advocating is taking away the right of
>> owners of the
>> servers to run them as they see fit. I don't think that's what you mean,
>> but that's
>> how it reads.
>
> And running servers as they see fit sounds a bit
> like Zukerbarfs' business-model rhetoric the other
> day responding to Canada's legislsation proposals.

True. Canadians can still get Canadian news, but have to use a browser or
rss reader, not facebook.

>> Any hosting service you consider buying, check the ip address at a site
>> such as
>> https://www.dnsbl.info/dnsbl-list.php
>> It does a lookup of the ip address with many of the publicly accessible
>> lists.
>
> Good point but it's a bit of 'buyer-beware' philo
> which IMO is obsolete in civilized societies. Do
> we allow unscrupolous surgeons to leave patients
> to stich themselves up? Then why should we allow
> unscrupolous anyone to act similarly?

Forgot to add previously, If you want to run your own mail server, get your
own domain name, set up an ns entry for the mail server and ensure the hosting
service will set up reverse dns for that ip pointing to your mail server.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

On 2023-09-07, bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net> wrote:

>> Level 1 listed ip addresses will automatically be removed seven days
>> after the
>> spam stops.
>
> I don't know what spam-trap criteriae ARE, almost ALL people I know
> don't either. Instead of bouncing MY emails why don't they email me with
> the details that caused MY email to trap?

Because they are not stupid inconsiderate fuckheads.

They think it's spam. they don't know that the return path is
legitimate. If it's forged that will be spamming an innocent party
with refusal messages.

Thus it's much better to refuse at SMTP time, read the refusal
message there's usually enough data there.

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

On 9/7/23 22:22, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 15:24:30 -0400, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 07/09/2023 18:09, bad sector wrote:
>>
>>> I got this in a UCEPROTECT report from a store
>>> whose email to me I could not reply to and who
>>> stand to lose money on account of it (I stand to
>>> lose a lot of time!!).
>>>
>>> I put this SCAM in the same drawer as spam phonecalls
>>> to avoid which one has to register oneself on a
>>> white-list of people who do NOT want unsolicited
>>> phonecalls.
>>
>> No, this is more of extortion like malware that encrypts your files and
>> want bitcoins to decrypt them (if you are lucky).
>>
>> They do break to the tradition where you should have a mechanism to be
>> able to be cleared from the blocklist and there are many who do not look
>> kindly at them.
>
> There are many other people like me who believe an isp that doesn't do
> anything
> to block the spam flowing from their customers shouldn't be allowed to send
> any email.

The problem is that they block a span owned by a network provider, you
may have issues with a /24 span but they may block a /16 span. There is
no way to get removed from the blocking other than paying quite a lot of
money.

All serious blocklists has a mechanism to be removed from the list,
which do not involve loads of money.

> The people who use the uceprotect mailing list to filter out the spam
> have chosen
> to do so, because they are tired of all of the spam.

They figured out how to extort innocents on money, as you may have a
really good reputation, but just someone else in the /16 span you belong
to spams (intentionally or due of a bug in software) and you get
blacklisted.

--
//Aho

Am 07.09.2023 schrieb bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net>:

> My email domain keeps getting *blacklisted* on
> account of (as far as I'm able to determine)
> the fact that my Domain-Name Hosting provider
> falls under i.e.
>
> "..is part of AS 16276 OVH FR and the Networks
> 167.114.128.0/18

OVH is often in the top10 list of spamming autonomous systems.
It seems that this hoster doesn't really care about spam.

Choose another hoster that has a good abuse management.

Am 07.09.2023 schrieb bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net>:

> On 9/7/23 16:09, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> > The uceprotect block list service has existed for decades.
>
> You're telling *me*? I've been up against them from time to time for
> decades too, yet I have NEVER sent any spam anywhere.

See may explanation below.

> I don't know what spam-trap criteriae ARE, almost ALL people I know
> don't either. Instead of bouncing MY emails why don't they email me
> with the details that caused MY email to trap? And IF it's not MY
> email then block the guilty IP address but not others at whichever
> single ISP, not to mention chains of ISP's.

Often the providers use relays and your servers send the mails to that
relay. The relay is being used by many users.
If the relay is being abused, it will be blocked.

To identify relays used by spammers, people set up spam traps. No
normal user will send mails to them (unless they have the intention to
blacklist their ISP´s server). Spammers that harvest addresses will
most likely include such trap addresses when sending spam. If a spammer
now uses your relay to send spam to the trap address, the relay will be
blacklisted.

If you wanna have more control over that, run your own mail server
(with the knowledge needed for that) in an AS that cares about abuse.

> So if I get spam from some mookmook in timbucktoo then it's ok to
> nuke the whole continent; sickening microcancerish bullshit.

That is the reality. There is no other possibility than blocking an
entire mail system. Some ISPs don't care about spam and abusers use
other addresses. This often results in the listing of the entire AS and
therefore in the listing of innocent servers.

> > For you, convince your isp to take action as their failure to stop
> > their customers
>
> Yeah, right, my yearly equivalent of a bud-light 3-pack will really
> swing the pendulum. At one time it was pointed out that it was maybe
> smarter to have a dedicated rather than a shared server, even without
> being mail-server knowlegable I figured that I should pay more for a
> dedicated server. Did't make any difference though, none at all.

The hardware isn't relevant for the listing. Only the amount of spam
coming from the system that sends the mails out and the AS itself.

> > In the case of 167.114.138.246, it shows your ip address has not
> > sent spam, but
> > AS16276 (OVH Hosting, Inc.) have 816 ip addresses that have managed
> > to hit spamtraps used by uceprotect 4534 times in the last 7 days.
> > That's from http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php
>
> My "ISP" is Save-On-Hosting dot com. How namy of those spam trappers
> originated from THEM?

I cannot tell you how many, although it seems that OVH has spammers in
its network. they must remove them.

> Whose rights prvail, those who want spam-free mail or those who want
> to send non-spam mail without being prejudiced against? Is my right
> to communicate less than another's to receive no spam?

This is rather simple:
Somebody is responsible for the domain of the recipient. Either himself
or an ISP.

The operator decides that he want to block certain servers by using
blocklists.

If you recipient doesn't want them, he has to ask the admin to accept
mail for his address from any source.

Another possibility is that he runs its own domain with own mail server.
> > Most isps now block outgoing connections to port 25, except from
> > customers who
> > have registered with them as running a mail server. Those that
> > don't deserve
> > to be blocked from sending email.
>
> I have no idea what port 25 does, nor do I care!

If you have mail problems, you should care. :-)
tcp/25 is the port for smtp communication.
465 and 587 are SMTP submission (your mail client will contact the mail
provider´s SMTP server on that port) and require authentication, so
spammers cannot send mail to that port.
Spammers can send mail to port 25, because there auth must not be
required (you postbox at your house is also open for letters by
everyone).

Normal users that don't operate an SMTP server don't need to connect to
port 25.
To avoid that normaler users can send spam (intended or because of
malware), most ISPs block port 25 tcp outgoing, unless the customer
requests to unblock it.

> My ISP sets up a dedicated mail server in conjunction with my hosted
> web site and that's what I pay for. If anyone wants to blacklist ME
> for spam they should prove that MY server has originated spam or shut
> the fuck up and vanish from the list of breathing entities!

Can you proof that?
Mostly this server is shared with hundreds of customers. If one of them
abuses it, it will be blacklisted.
Most likely it is not your fault.

> ANYONE accused of ANY wrong doing has the right (at least in
> countries of 2-legged humanoids) to be presented with details AND
> evidence without which defense is impossible.

The recipient´s administrator can decide from whom he wants to accept
mail.
If the recipient itself wants control over that, he has to operate its
own infrastructure.

> > The good thing about getting blocked by uceprotect is that the
> > blocking will
> > stop when the spam stops. Many other blocklists do not have removal
> > policies.
> > Once listed, it's permanent.
>
> How sweet, not much help though when I just wasted a day trying to
> complete already initiated commercial exchanges essential to my
> farming activitioes in time before winter. In the particular case,
> today, I had twenty grand's worth of engine parts at various stations
> in a shipping system in various states of acceptability etc. etc.
> etc. How about MY right to communicate?

I know that your situation is bad, but the only way to permanently go
out of that is running your own servers in your own AS.

> The self-appointed netcops they should erect sanctions against the
> spam originators on a much more specific level through international
> cooperation and legistlation.

Technically this is not possible. They only reliable source is the
address of the server transmitting the spam to the target. The real
author can be easily forged.
The idea is to make the server operators ban such users and try to
limit abuse as much as possible.
Most operators do that, some don't. Some companies love spammers as
customers. Nobody wants spam from them. The victim are innocent
customers of the same company.

> As it is I agree with J.O. Aho, when you blacklist and demand money
> to be expeditiously unlisted that's called extortion and is a crime
> in most human circles. Just like the telephone spam-lists, I will
> have NO PART OF IT.

They only want money to unlist you immediately.
Somebody needs to do the work.
I can understand that they take money.
Although, they unlist you automatically after some days when no spam
comes from the IP.
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=7&s=0

On 9/8/23 00:31, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 00:10:18 -0400, bad sector <forgetski@invalid.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/7/23 23:12, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>>
>>> What it sounds like you are advocating is taking away the right of
>>> owners of the
>>> servers to run them as they see fit. I don't think that's what you mean,
>>> but that's
>>> how it reads.
>>
>> And running servers as they see fit sounds a bit
>> like Zukerbarfs' business-model rhetoric the other
>> day responding to Canada's legislsation proposals.
>
> True. Canadians can still get Canadian news, but have to use a browser or
> rss reader, not facebook.

Not only that but I see that Radio-Canada (the Quebec and thus
francophone arm of the CBC) is setting up its own 'app' whatever that
may be.

>>> Any hosting service you consider buying, check the ip address at a site
>>> such as
>>> https://www.dnsbl.info/dnsbl-list.php
>>> It does a lookup of the ip address with many of the publicly accessible
>>> lists.
>>
>> Good point but it's a bit of 'buyer-beware' philo
>> which IMO is obsolete in civilized societies. Do
>> we allow unscrupolous surgeons to leave patients
>> to stich themselves up? Then why should we allow
>> unscrupolous anyone to act similarly?
>
> Forgot to add previously, If you want to run your own mail server, get your
> own domain name, set up an ns entry for the mail server and ensure the
> hosting
> service will set up reverse dns for that ip pointing to your mail server.

I do and I will (look into it), thanks. At this point in time and in
trail of some other comments in the thread, I'm not entirely sure if my
'mail server' is really a full autonomous mail server or just a bundled
mail server service (hitched to my my dedicated web server service after
I demanded it).

On 9/8/23 03:07, J.O. Aho wrote:
> On 9/7/23 22:22, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 15:24:30 -0400, J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/09/2023 18:09, bad sector wrote:
>>>
>>>> I got this in a UCEPROTECT report from a store
>>>> whose email to me I could not reply to and who
>>>> stand to lose money on account of it (I stand to
>>>> lose a lot of time!!).
>>>>
>>>> I put this SCAM in the same drawer as spam phonecalls
>>>> to avoid which one has to register oneself on a
>>>> white-list of people who do NOT want unsolicited
>>>> phonecalls.
>>>
>>> No, this is more of extortion like malware that encrypts your files and
>>> want bitcoins to decrypt them (if you are lucky).
>>>
>>> They do break to the tradition where you should have a mechanism to be
>>> able to be cleared from the blocklist and there are many who do not look
>>> kindly at them.
>>
>> There are many other people like me who believe an isp that doesn't do
>> anything
>> to block the spam flowing from their customers shouldn't be allowed to
>> send
>> any email.
>
> The problem is that they block a span owned by a network provider, you
> may have issues with a /24 span but they may block a /16 span. There is
> no way to get removed from the blocking other than paying quite a lot of
> money.
>
> All serious blocklists has a mechanism to be removed from the list,
> which do not involve loads of money.
>
>
>> The people who use the uceprotect mailing list to filter out the spam
>> have chosen
>> to do so, because they are tired of all of the spam.
>
> They figured out how to extort innocents on money, as you may have a
> really good reputation, but just someone else in the /16 span you belong
> to spams (intentionally or due of a bug in software) and you get
> blacklisted.

Money does say extortion but what is even more worrisome is that under
the guise of spam-control they recruit thousands of desparate customers
who blindly trusting the lists because they do limit spam then tether
themselves to the blacklists just to be free of yet another
administrative headache. Then, after a while, the blacklists start
leaning against the politically-incorrect and those who are thorns in
the sides of someone and the lists imperceptibly morphe into a
*disconnect from the world rental-service* for googlegoons. When so
fundamental concepts are involved there can be no gray areas and any
neo-egg with so called blacklists and ransom is by definition and
default a huge fog bank to be treated with extreme prejudice (pun intended).

On 9/8/23 03:10, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 07.09.2023 schrieb bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net>:
>
>> My email domain keeps getting *blacklisted* on
>> account of (as far as I'm able to determine)
>> the fact that my Domain-Name Hosting provider
>> falls under i.e.
>>
>> "..is part of AS 16276 OVH FR and the Networks
>> 167.114.128.0/18
>
> OVH is often in the top10 list of spamming autonomous systems.
> It seems that this hoster doesn't really care about spam.
>
> Choose another hoster that has a good abuse management.

It's not excluded, I'm waiting for my hoster to pull the raised ticket
and answer it. This WILL be the last chance (as it certainly isn't the
first incident). I'm NOT against providers being arm-twisted to move
against spam, I'm againts dangerous precedents and obscure gestapoisms.

On 9/8/23 05:01, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 07.09.2023 schrieb bad sector <forgetski@INVALID.net>:
>
>> On 9/7/23 16:09, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>>> The uceprotect block list service has existed for decades.
>>
>> You're telling *me*? I've been up against them from time to time for
>> decades too, yet I have NEVER sent any spam anywhere.
>
> See may explanation below.
>
>> I don't know what spam-trap criteriae ARE, almost ALL people I know
>> don't either. Instead of bouncing MY emails why don't they email me
>> with the details that caused MY email to trap? And IF it's not MY
>> email then block the guilty IP address but not others at whichever
>> single ISP, not to mention chains of ISP's.
>
> Often the providers use relays and your servers send the mails to that
> relay. The relay is being used by many users.
> If the relay is being abused, it will be blocked.
>
> To identify relays used by spammers, people set up spam traps. No
> normal user will send mails to them (unless they have the intention to
> blacklist their ISP´s server). Spammers that harvest addresses will
> most likely include such trap addresses when sending spam. If a spammer
> now uses your relay to send spam to the trap address, the relay will be
> blacklisted.
>
> If you wanna have more control over that, run your own mail server
> (with the knowledge needed for that) in an AS that cares about abuse.
>
>> So if I get spam from some mookmook in timbucktoo then it's ok to
>> nuke the whole continent; sickening microcancerish bullshit.
>
> That is the reality. There is no other possibility than blocking an
> entire mail system. Some ISPs don't care about spam and abusers use
> other addresses. This often results in the listing of the entire AS and
> therefore in the listing of innocent servers.
>
>>> For you, convince your isp to take action as their failure to stop
>>> their customers
>>
>> Yeah, right, my yearly equivalent of a bud-light 3-pack will really
>> swing the pendulum. At one time it was pointed out that it was maybe
>> smarter to have a dedicated rather than a shared server, even without
>> being mail-server knowlegable I figured that I should pay more for a
>> dedicated server. Did't make any difference though, none at all.
>
> The hardware isn't relevant for the listing. Only the amount of spam
> coming from the system that sends the mails out and the AS itself.
>
>>> In the case of 167.114.138.246, it shows your ip address has not
>>> sent spam, but
>>> AS16276 (OVH Hosting, Inc.) have 816 ip addresses that have managed
>>> to hit spamtraps used by uceprotect 4534 times in the last 7 days.
>>> That's from http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php
>>
>> My "ISP" is Save-On-Hosting dot com. How namy of those spam trappers
>> originated from THEM?
>
> I cannot tell you how many, although it seems that OVH has spammers in
> its network. they must remove them.
>
>> Whose rights prvail, those who want spam-free mail or those who want
>> to send non-spam mail without being prejudiced against? Is my right
>> to communicate less than another's to receive no spam?
>
> This is rather simple:
> Somebody is responsible for the domain of the recipient. Either himself
> or an ISP.
>
> The operator decides that he want to block certain servers by using
> blocklists.
>
> If you recipient doesn't want them, he has to ask the admin to accept
> mail for his address from any source.
>
> Another possibility is that he runs its own domain with own mail server.
>
>>> Most isps now block outgoing connections to port 25, except from
>>> customers who
>>> have registered with them as running a mail server. Those that
>>> don't deserve
>>> to be blocked from sending email.
>>
>> I have no idea what port 25 does, nor do I care!
>
> If you have mail problems, you should care. :-)
> tcp/25 is the port for smtp communication.
> 465 and 587 are SMTP submission (your mail client will contact the mail
> provider´s SMTP server on that port) and require authentication, so
> spammers cannot send mail to that port.
> Spammers can send mail to port 25, because there auth must not be
> required (you postbox at your house is also open for letters by
> everyone).
>
> Normal users that don't operate an SMTP server don't need to connect to
> port 25.
> To avoid that normaler users can send spam (intended or because of
> malware), most ISPs block port 25 tcp outgoing, unless the customer
> requests to unblock it.
>
>> My ISP sets up a dedicated mail server in conjunction with my hosted
>> web site and that's what I pay for. If anyone wants to blacklist ME
>> for spam they should prove that MY server has originated spam or shut
>> the fuck up and vanish from the list of breathing entities!
>
> Can you proof that?
> Mostly this server is shared with hundreds of customers. If one of them
> abuses it, it will be blacklisted.
> Most likely it is not your fault.
>
>> ANYONE accused of ANY wrong doing has the right (at least in
>> countries of 2-legged humanoids) to be presented with details AND
>> evidence without which defense is impossible.
>
> The recipient´s administrator can decide from whom he wants to accept
> mail.
> If the recipient itself wants control over that, he has to operate its
> own infrastructure.
>
>>> The good thing about getting blocked by uceprotect is that the
>>> blocking will
>>> stop when the spam stops. Many other blocklists do not have removal
>>> policies.
>>> Once listed, it's permanent.
>>
>> How sweet, not much help though when I just wasted a day trying to
>> complete already initiated commercial exchanges essential to my
>> farming activitioes in time before winter. In the particular case,
>> today, I had twenty grand's worth of engine parts at various stations
>> in a shipping system in various states of acceptability etc. etc.
>> etc. How about MY right to communicate?
>
> I know that your situation is bad, but the only way to permanently go
> out of that is running your own servers in your own AS.

No cigar. That sounds like a penalty to exercise a far more fundamental
freedom.

>> The self-appointed netcops they should erect sanctions against the
>> spam originators on a much more specific level through international
>> cooperation and legistlation.
>
> Technically this is not possible. They only reliable source is the
> address of the server transmitting the spam to the target. The real
> author can be easily forged.
> The idea is to make the server operators ban such users and try to
> limit abuse as much as possible.
> Most operators do that, some don't. Some companies love spammers as
> customers. Nobody wants spam from them. The victim are innocent
> customers of the same company.
>
>> As it is I agree with J.O. Aho, when you blacklist and demand money
>> to be expeditiously unlisted that's called extortion and is a crime
>> in most human circles. Just like the telephone spam-lists, I will
>> have NO PART OF IT.
>
> They only want money to unlist you immediately.

Here we enter another consideration. The merchant in question told me
that they receive daily reports of the blocked emails (if I understood
correctly, their IT guy was pretty arrogant and talking down to ME like
"I" was some criminal, I who as the paying customer put supper on this
family's table for crissake). Anyhow, IF it's true that they receive a
list of originators blacklisted that day then THEY should fork out the
money to have them immediately unlisted. NOT doing so means they don't
really want you as a paying customer; and I can live with that, there
ARE other merchants out there.

On 2023-09-07 23:19, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 22:36:30 -0400, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> Also, the received headers can be investigated. The last one is always
>> true, because it is your own mail server. So you trace backwards, one by
>> one... at some point, you need police and court cooperation from the
>> countries traversed by the mail, you need the police going to that
>> server and demanding the logs by force. In the end, after a lot of
>> money, you can find someone to put in prison. But not all countries are
>> going to collaborate...
>
> Not all servers keep logs, and those that do have limits on how long
> it's kept for, so speed would be another problem to deal with.

Just change the law so that they are mandated to keep logs.

Good luck with that.

>
>> Certainly, it may be coming from a compromised machine of some poor sod.
>> Well, he must be fined for having a machine compromised, for not paying
>> maintenance, for having faulty providers like M$.
>> After you fine a few thousands, people will take care.
>
> Nah. They'll just band together to replace the government with one
> that doesn't do that.
>
>> But we will not get that level of international cooperation.
>
> That's true!
>
> Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.