Claus von Wolfhausen wrote:
NeonNero wrote:
It's not just a usual claim from spammers, the extortion racket claim is also wide used among non-spammers, especially with regards to blocking lists who charge money to remove people from that list. (No, you can't send your important e-mail message now. You'll have to wait a full week or pay me money to let it through.[i])
UCEPROTECT runs on autopilot at 99,85%
That means no one has to lift a finger here to remove listings, they just expire if there is no abuse seen for 7 days.
That is the usual way UCEPROTECT works.
SpamCop.net and Spamhaus.org are mainly automated systems, too. But that doesn't mean that they don't care about customer service. Waiting a full 7 days is a bit extreme, no matter which blocking list it is, considering that's for [i]any offense, and not taken any exponential factors into account (such as 5 hours for 1-5 offenses, 24 hours listing for 5-50 offenses, 48 hours for 50-100 hits, 7 days for more than 100, just to throw an example out there).
Claus von Wolfhausen wrote:
Oh i forgot, there are these very important persons which's lifes are depending on email-delivery.
If email would be so important for them, they would better think about security of their systems before they got hacked.
Oh and there are providers that give a s*** to who are their new customers and it does not matter to them to abuse their other customers as human shields.
If those get listed and the whining starts about the bad guys at UCEPROTECT, there are always some dumbsters which think they must come up with the extortion storyand the even dumber claim that no one would use that lists.
Why do i say dumbster?
Because those can't think logic.
If no one would use our lists, then you wouldn't even get aware of our listings and wouldn't have to tell your even dumber story of extortion.
"Extortion" is a more than sufficient word for your operation. According to WordNet:
Quote:
extortion
noun
1. an exorbitant charge
(definition 2 and 3 probably doesn't apply here, unless someone has better information), and
Quote:
exorbitant
adjective
greatly exceeding bounds of reason or moderation; "exorbitant rent"; "extortionate prices"; "spends an outrageous amount on entertainment"; "usurious interest rate"; "unconscionable spending"
Additionally, insults and cusswords get you nowhere, they only display your own childishness.
Claus von Wolfhausen wrote:
The facts are:
If people here have to do manual work to check if problems are really fixed and removing IP's manually it is something which costs the company money.
That is only in parts payed by the expressdelisting fees.
If you are willig to do the work of 8 employees 24/7 free of charge here to deal with athe spamfriendly providers and lusers which got hacked and were abused for spamming then no problem.
We would really preferre to have a genius as you doing their work free of charge, it would save us a lot of money.
If so we would no longer need to charge fees for expressdelistings.
So did you apply for that position here?
If not - simply shut up and blame the right persons for the listing - the sewers that caused the listings.
They did get listed 4 days ago, and what do you think?
Did they boot their massive spamming customer in the meantime?
You guess it - they did of course not.
If, by the same measure, all development on Linux had been paying work, it would probably cost way more than any given Windows version. Volunteer work is where it's at. Volunteers at other blocking lists do it to better the world, not just to get a paycheck out of it.
Besides, since you have such amazing automated listing facilities, why not also provide a similar and secure infrastructure/system for automated de-listing? And for the proper reasons, mind you. The amount of man-hours would plummet on a case-by-case basis.
I mean, you
do send an automated report to the ISP you list (to their abuse desk or other technical contact) about the fact that they are on the list, right? That is, to let them know they have a spam source on their hands.
If not, I don't get what your 8 employees are being paid for doing 24/7.
And no, I didn't apply for that position at your company, and judging by how you operate, I would be seriously offended to be in any type of affiliation with UCEPROTECT or any of its owners and/or partners.
Claus von Wolfhausen wrote:
NeonNero wrote:
SpamCop.net and Spamhaus.org require you to contact them and provide an explanation for the delisting rather than a payment. There's the difference between an extortion racket like yourself and legitimate blocking lists.
SpamCop.Net does not inquire anything, you will be removed automatically whitin 24 hours after a spamrun from your machine ends. The fact you can contact them does not really mean you can hurry up things.
SPAMCOP-WEBSITE wrote:
Dispute Listing
If you are the administrator of this system and you are sure this listing is erroneous, you may request that we review the listing. Because everyone wants to dispute their listing, regardless of merit, we reserve the right to ignore meritless disputes.
No, hurrying up things is no guarantee when contacting them, but it will give the ISP a greater chance to dispute false reports.
Claus von Wolfhausen wrote:
Spamhaus.org is a commercial system which charges users of their blocklists instead.
See here:
http://www.spamhaus.org/datafeed/pricecalculator.lassoDifferent to that UCEPROTECT-Blocklists can be used free of charge by anyone who wants to do so.
I guess even you should now see that you can't compare blocklist models which couldn't be more different in their concepts.
Charging for usage is all a matter of what volume of e-mail you process. If you're somewhat larger ISP, you would be better off subscribing to their Data Feed service. However, if you're just a single server owner, you're more or less free to use their DNSBL service.
http://www.spamhaus.org/organization/dnsblusage.htmlClaus von Wolfhausen wrote:
NeonNero wrote:
Also, saying that GNAX is a spammer's haven based on 300 IPs out of 92,000 (yes, ninety-thousand IP addresses) last year is a bit extreme, don't you think? And in the other thread, the IP mentioned was 64.62.190.246, which you follow up with a reference to GNAXNET ("AS3595"). The IP mentioned isn't even remotely near GNAX's network.
Sorry my fault, i didn't read the complete thread so let's talk about
64.62.128.0/17
It's not better at all, even more worse:
Lets see this:
http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php?asn=6939How can a professional provider manage to get 200 spamming IP's within a /17 network within 7 days?
Yes one needs to be negligent to not notice their new customers are spammers.
Checking PTR'S for those 200 IP's and run whois for the domains you get there you will find that they are *WELL KNOWN* to everyone that ever had to deal with spam.
How can such a large professional provider
not manage to get 200 spamming IPs within such a short timeframe, especially if caught at a bad time. With a /17 network (that accounts to 32766 hosts), 200 IPs are roughly 0.6% of the total. Those would now no longer be customers.
Claus von Wolfhausen wrote:
NeonNero wrote:
Frankly, as a non-customer with Linode, I don't know how you can find time in your workday to visit, read and write posts on a relatively small forum like this one.
That is because my employer pays me to do public relations and Google is my friend too.
It is very easy to find threads as that one where dumbsters claim the story of extortion again and again.
Serious: If we would be racketers, then we would not even care about your writings.
First of all, if you're being paid for doing public relations, I think you're mainly performing your function as a public relations representative rather poorly with your unprofessionalism, rude language and offensive behavior. In my opinion, and I may have mentioned it before, politeness and a small amount of flexibility comes a long way in my book.
Second, who's your employer, then?
Code:
WHOIS for UCEPROTECT.NET:
domain: uceprotect.net
status: LOCK
owner-c: LULU-10008350
admin-c: LULU-10008350
tech-c: LULU-10008350
zone-c: LULU-10008350
nserver: ns1.lautenschlager.net
nserver: ns2.lautenschlager.net
nserver: ns3.lautenschlager.net
created: 2003-05-14 15:35:00
expire: 2009-05-14 00:00:00 (registry time)
changed: 2008-06-11 17:21:13
[owner-c] handle: 10008350
[owner-c] type: PERSON
[owner-c] title:
[owner-c] fname: Claus
[owner-c] lname: von Wolfhausen
[owner-c] org: UCEPROTECT-Orga
[owner-c] address: Postfach 23023
[owner-c] city: Muenchen
[owner-c] pcode: 80535
[owner-c] country: DE
[owner-c] state: BY
[owner-c] phone: +49-1805-444894208
[owner-c] fax: +49-1805-444894268
[owner-c] email: _stop_spam_to_be_removed@uceprotect.org
[owner-c] protection: B
[owner-c] updated: 2008-04-07 13:30:54
[admin-c] handle: 10008350
[admin-c] type: PERSON
[admin-c] title:
[admin-c] fname: Claus
[admin-c] lname: von Wolfhausen
[admin-c] org: UCEPROTECT-Orga
[admin-c] address: Postfach 23023
[admin-c] city: Muenchen
[admin-c] pcode: 80535
[admin-c] country: DE
[admin-c] state: BY
[admin-c] phone: +49-1805-444894208
[admin-c] fax: +49-1805-444894268
[admin-c] email: _stop_spam_to_be_removed@uceprotect.org
[admin-c] protection: B
[admin-c] updated: 2008-04-07 13:30:54
[tech-c] handle: 10008350
[tech-c] type: PERSON
[tech-c] title:
[tech-c] fname: Claus
[tech-c] lname: von Wolfhausen
[tech-c] org: UCEPROTECT-Orga
[tech-c] address: Postfach 23023
[tech-c] city: Muenchen
[tech-c] pcode: 80535
[tech-c] country: DE
[tech-c] state: BY
[tech-c] phone: +49-1805-444894208
[tech-c] fax: +49-1805-444894268
[tech-c] email: _stop_spam_to_be_removed@uceprotect.org
[tech-c] protection: B
[tech-c] updated: 2008-04-07 13:30:54
[zone-c] handle: 10008350
[zone-c] type: PERSON
[zone-c] title:
[zone-c] fname: Claus
[zone-c] lname: von Wolfhausen
[zone-c] org: UCEPROTECT-Orga
[zone-c] address: Postfach 23023
[zone-c] city: Muenchen
[zone-c] pcode: 80535
[zone-c] country: DE
[zone-c] state: BY
[zone-c] phone: +49-1805-444894208
[zone-c] fax: +49-1805-444894268
[zone-c] email: _stop_spam_to_be_removed@uceprotect.org
[zone-c] protection: B
[zone-c] updated: 2008-04-07 13:30:54
Code:
WHOIS for UCEPROTECT.ORG:
Domain ID:D106342186-LROR
Domain Name:UCEPROTECT.ORG
Created On:17-May-2005 15:48:02 UTC
Last Updated On:18-May-2008 01:24:08 UTC
Expiration Date:17-May-2009 15:48:02 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot (R68-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:ABM-10008350
Registrant Name:Claus von Wolfhausen
Registrant Organization:UCEPROTECT-Orga
Registrant Street1:Postfach 23023
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Muenchen
Registrant State/Province:BY
Registrant Postal Code:80535
Registrant Country:DE
Registrant Phone:+49.1805444894208
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+49.1805444894268
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:_stop_spam_to_be_removed@uceprotect.org
Admin ID:ABM-10008350
Admin Name:Claus von Wolfhausen
Admin Organization:UCEPROTECT-Orga
Admin Street1:Postfach 23023
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Muenchen
Admin State/Province:BY
Admin Postal Code:80535
Admin Country:DE
Admin Phone:+49.1805444894208
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+49.1805444894268
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:_stop_spam_to_be_removed@uceprotect.org
Tech ID:ABM-10008350
Tech Name:Claus von Wolfhausen
Tech Organization:UCEPROTECT-Orga
Tech Street1:Postfach 23023
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Muenchen
Tech State/Province:BY
Tech Postal Code:80535
Tech Country:DE
Tech Phone:+49.1805444894208
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+49.1805444894268
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:_stop_spam_to_be_removed@uceprotect.org
Name Server:NS9.SCHLUNDTECH.DE
Name Server:NS10.SCHLUNDTECH.DE
Both domain names are listed in
your name directly, and with the organization "UCEPROTECT-Orga", which I think is a rather strange name. Also, looking at your uceprotect.org website (which, for us "outsiders", is just a front page), it rather reminds me of a some sort of hacker organization. With that particular look, I must say I found it rather odd to not see the phrase "w33 p0wnz th4 w0r1d" or something along those lines.
Now, who's your employer, exactly? Yourself?
Also, I'd like to add that I've reported a small share of websites mentioned in spam messages (more than twice in any given month, actually) to Schlund.de. Does that mean you might be on a network that supports spammers as well? Given the presentation at the uceprotect.net website, I'd say they do qualify.
mwalling wrote:
Claus von Wolfhausen wrote:
That is because my employer pays me to do public relations and Google is my [only] friend
Yes,
Google is
your friend.
I followed the entire thread on that third link, and I'd have to say that I agreed with most of the points
against UCEPROTECT in that discussion. The policies appear to be beyond abusive, and especially punitive to those who just happen to be at a same datacenter as a spammer managed to break himself into for a day (before being thrown back out).
FAQ
Search
Members
Register
Login [ Anonymous ]
