I'm not going to get into the fact-throwing nonsense, but I will say that Uceprotect is doing the wrong in this situation.

Umm, GNAX didn't mention vservers at all. (and he mentioned 5 by default, with others having more).

You mentioned vservers. This is linode. On linode every vserver gets its own IP address.

_________________
Rgds
Stephen
(Linux user since kernel version 0.11)

Of course he is. He's been laughed at all through nanae. We won't convince him that he's in the wrong (and I wish he hadn't come here to bring his fight to this place).

Fortunately anyone who uses his RBLs aren't serious about getting their mail delivered, so I don't care. I just laugh at them, and maybe try to educate them. Fortunately all the clued people I know also laugh at him.

_________________
Rgds

Stephen

(Linux user since kernel version 0.11)

I find it amusing, in a way, that he's come to the forum of a service filled largely with clueful people (clueful due to the nature of how linode works), to defend blocking a large fraction of us, despite us not being spammers. There's a sort of tragic irony in that.

_________________
----
Ed/Bones.

Then maybe you are looking at the wrong datacentres.

What makes a vserver any different than a physical server? Today's technology allows 40 vservers to run on one physical server. Tomorrow we'll be running 400 vservers on a single server. The big iron guys have already demonstrated thousands of vservers on a single machine.

The physical servers of today will certainly be (and are already) replaced by vservers. We use our vservers for our company mail, cvs repositories, ipv6 tunneling and sometimes web servers.

Think about it.. where are mail servers hosted? My ISPs mail servers all sit in a datacentre. My company's mail server sits in a datacentre. In fact *most* mail servers sit in a datacentre.

--deckert

They have us blacklisted again.

_________________
----

Ed/Bones.

Hardly anybody cares - they are totally irrelevant - their bizarre policies and extortionist business model causes sensible providers to ignore them.

_________________
/ Peter

Kind of interesting thread you revived from the dead though... it shows that they care more about mud slinging then actually giving good answers (his post on the first page saying that there is only one ip per host... if he's going to walk into a companies forum, you would think he would do some research first

There are much much better ways of combating spam than with blacklists actually. Blacklists are reactionary and as demonstrated with this joker at UCEProtect destructive to your business if you actually use them. It goes down to behavior and patterns in the actual email, much like how anti-virus is done now days.

My two bits for what it's worth

Some blacklists are ok though, like Spamhaus' PBL... that list stops a lot of malware infested Windows boxes from getting spam through.

The problem is not some hundret hacked boxes, the problem is that your UPLINK GNAX is hosting a major spammer with some hundret IP's at this time.

Have a look at the IP's which are causing the problem and see what you get as PTR's:

http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php?asn=3595

Scroll down complete to see the IP's which got listed at Level 1 and so causing the problem.

So lets see some of the IP's and decide what it is:

63.247.64.65 mail1.awesomemktg.net
63.247.64.66 mail2.awesomemktg.net
and so on some hundrets more of that one..

Now lets look to whom you can say THANK YOU for being listed:

Domain Name: awesomemktg.net
Registrar: Name.com LLC

Expiration Date: 2009-04-28 00:00:00
Creation Date: 2008-04-28 16:06:07

Name Servers:
ns1.awesomemktg.net
ns2.awesomemktg.net

REGISTRANT CONTACT INFO
Inet Advertising
Domain Administrator
234 Morrell Rd.
Suite 160
Knoxville
TN
37919
US
Phone: +1.6155126750
Email Address: inetadvertising.admin@gmail.com

63.247.64.100

and let's see who is that:

Domain Name: differentmktg.net
Registrar: Name.com LLC

Expiration Date: 2009-04-28 00:00:00
Creation Date: 2008-04-28 16:06:08

Name Servers:
ns1.differentmktg.net
ns2.differentmktg.net

REGISTRANT CONTACT INFO
Inet Advertising
Domain Administrator
234 Morrell Rd.
Suite 160
Knoxville
TN
37919
US
Phone: +1.6155126750
Email Address: inetadvertising.admin@gmail.com

Lets pick another IP from that space ...

63.247.95.100 mail4.mailingsforconsumers.net

Domain Name: mailingsforconsumers.net
Registrar: Name.com LLC

Expiration Date: 2009-04-13 00:00:00
Creation Date: 2008-04-13 16:33:56

Name Servers:
ns2.mailingsforconsumers.net
ns1.mailingsforconsumers.net

REGISTRANT CONTACT INFO
Inet Advertising
Domain Administrator
234 Morrell Rd.
Suite 160
Knoxville
TN
37919
US
Phone: +1.6155126750
Email Address: inetadvertising.admin@gmail.com

If you will do the work and have a look to that list above then you will find that GNAX did lease some hundret IP's to a well known spammer.

Claiming they would not have known about that is futile.

The PTR's given should have been warning enough to know that it will be no brave customer.

All of the domains within the complete Listings were registered less than 3 month ago and for only one reason - spamming.

Spammers lie and so does GNAX.

GNAX wants YOUR money, but they also want spammers money.
They did exactly knew that they will end up in UCEPROTECT-Level 3 again if they will give complete /24 Networks to spammers again as they did it one year ago too.

It might be a good idea if Linode would search for a better uplink instead.

Companies using our lists do exactly know why they are using UCEPROTECT and you will not get them to drop us, because UCEPROTECT works for them.

Have a look at AL IVERSON's independant staistics:

http://stats.dnsbl.com/uce3.html

That translates to: UCEPROTECT-Level 3 (which lists complete providers) has blocked about 40% spammails, but less than 0.3% false positives

Could that mean that those some hundret providers which manage to end up in Level 3 are responsible for 40% of the global spam, but less than 0,3% real mail came from their networks and ranges?

Wow... look who crawled out of his hole in the Iraqi desert...

Claus, its a small forum, you don't need to post the same propaganda twice. And, since you seem hellbent on attacking GNAX, http://www.linode.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3447 is actually referring to a HE IP address.

I still find it amazing that he's coming here, trying to convince us that it's OK to block us because of spammers that are at least two steps removed from us.

Take the hint, it's not our problem, because we have no control over this whatsoever. If you were to extend the same logic all the way up the chain, you might as well add the entire internet to your blacklist, because it's the whole world's responsibility to combat spammers.

_________________
----

Ed/Bones.

Sound like UCEPROTECT-Level 4 just got invented

You'll be safer with UCEProtect Level 5 - stops those Martian and Venusian spammers dead in their tracks.

_________________
/ Peter