Spews

[JohnScott]

I posted to the newsgroup about SPEWS and ServerBeach. Those guys are kinda whacko. They immediately assumed I was a spammer. I, and ServerBeach, were called "liars" because I denied that ServerBeach allows spammers to spam.

I see some serious metal.emotional unbalances amongst that group.

Very weird. :rolleyes:

[JohnScott]

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=news.admin.net-abuse.email

[fishfreek]

SPEWS is one of the most responsible organizations out there.
More so than ServerBeach is, or ever will be.


That has to be one of the biggest loads of BS I have heard in a long time.

How can SPEWS be consitered responsible when they go around blindly listing IP ranges as spammers because they have some 'reports' of supposed spam comming from some of the IP's within that range.

[knightfoo]

It gets even dumber than that. You don't even have to spam to get listed with SPEWS. If you're doing DNS for a domain that is doing DNS for a domain that is referenced in an e-mail that was reported as spam, you're on the blacklist (no, I did not stutter there). At times I have to wade through 4 levels of links and relations to figure out why the heck an IP address is listed. Seriously, how would the owner of a DNS server know he is doing DNS for someone who might be spamming? Nameserver operators don't get abuse complaints. When we get abuse complaints, we get rid of the spammer. Over 90% of our SPEWS listings were a result of someone who wasn't even spamming from our network, they were somehow linked to someone else who was spamming and the links are not always obvious.

-knightfoo

[kbrown]

This by far is the biggest problem I have had since coming to SB (I know its not their problem to address 100% of the time, I do not balme SB). I am reluctant to even migrate my bigger clients to my server as a result, but I am optimistic that somewhere somehow SPEWS will be considered worse than actually getting spam and just go away. ServerBeach you guys are great, all my expectations have been met and the server is exactly what I needed. This SPEWS thing is making it difficult for alot us at SB and elsewhere. All I can do is make sure my relay is locked down and try to operate my business. Maybe a joint effort can be organized some day to get their practices changed, in the meantime I will hold my breath!


Ok, maybe Ill just cross my arms and sneer a little.

[JohnScott]

It appears there are recent cases of spamming, but the spamming is not email spam; it is AIM and ICQ spam.

How is SB supposed to be able to prevent that???

[knightfoo]

Originally posted by JohnScott
It appears there are recent cases of spamming, but the spamming is not email spam; it is AIM and ICQ spam.

How is SB supposed to be able to prevent that???

Heh .. I've yet to see any abuse complaints about this type of spam. If someone could prove it and provide logs, we'd get rid of them.

-knightfoo

[JohnScott]

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030906144521.06258.00000643%40mb-m10.aol.com

Seems like there is mention and documentation in there.

Knightfoo, why not read through that thread? I know they are a bunch of idiots, but if there are really spammers on the network, I think you should kick them off.

[JohnScott]

Can somebody (staff) just go over there and state in no uncertain terms that if there is proof of spamming, ServerBeach will remove them?

[JohnScott]

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=nanas-0627150727518kZ7V%40snowdon.arboris.com

Are those people still on SB?

[knightfoo]

Originally posted by JohnScott
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=nanas-0627150727518kZ7V%40snowdon.arboris.com

Are those people still on SB?

Looks like a vhosting customer who may have sold an account to the offending spammer. That post is rather old though (June 27, 2003) so it is likely this issue has been taken care of. There are no recent abuse complaints on that IP address.

I posted the following to the NANAE list a little while ago, it may not have propagated to the groups yet: http://66.139.79.168/knightfoo/post.html. Let's see how badly I get flamed. :D

-knightfoo

[QT]

Originally posted by knightfoo
Let's see how badly I get flamed. :D


Who cares if you get flamed, although that'll be the case given the pirahna mentality those people have. They flame anything and everything that comes there, whether they have valid arguements or not. The bottom line is a member of ServerBeach has addressed that thread, stated some facts and if they don't like it...
then :fart:

[JohnScott]

Good job, Knightfoo! I like the fact that you guys are addressing the concerns proactively. I know those people are whacko, and they'll most likely flame you, but don't give it much concern. I don't care about a few IP's being listed in SPEWS (my primary server IP's are listed, the one with Webmaster-Forum.net; the Internet Marketing Research.net server IP's are clean.)

I just care that we are in the right, and they in the wrong. :)

[knightfoo]

Took half the day, but it finally made it: Re: ServerBeach (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&edition=us&frame=right&rnum=61&thl=986812842,986650459,0&seekm=8222fdba.0310111547.783dd1fd%40posting.googl e.com#link61)

I think this issue is too fuzzy to have a right and wrong. Both sides will have to give a little to make everyone at least relatively happy.

-knightfoo

[JohnScott]

Oh! Darn. Dealing with those newsgroup people. Makes me crazy. I have never met such a group of people who jumps to conclusions and makes wild accusations!