nanog mailing list archives
Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats
From: Rob McEwen <rob () invaluement com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:55:47 -0500
On 1/9/2013 9:58 PM, Julian DeMarchi wrote:
There is an anti-spam company called Spam Rats[1].... They have listed a /24 of my companies for lack of PTRs in the range
I find SpamRats' lists helpful in spam filtering as a low scoring list because it puts some new emitters which haven't had time to build up bad reputation "over the top". Having said that, they actually have 3 lists, and only one of those 3 lists involves listing IPs ONLY based on "no PTR". They also have an "all" list, but they document on their web site how to query the "all" list, but then ignore those return codes indicating the "no PTR" list. That is how I use them because I didn't need their "no PTR" list since it would be redundant for me since I was already checking for "no PTR" myself... and I didn't want to score twice on that one attribute. But if your information is accurate and I understand you correctly, then I agree that they shouldn't list the whole /24 in their PTR list if SOME of those IPs *do* have PTRs. (Actually, I wasn't aware that any of their lists involved /24 blocks. They should probably be more clear about that on their web site.) On their web site, on the http://www.spamrats.com/about.php page, under the heading, "NEW - SpamRats All", they describe this method of querying their "all" list, but ignoring their PTR list's particular return code. I think they made THAT suggestion FOR VERY GOOD REASON. Therefore, you could use this to your advantage by going back to whichever recipient blocked your mail and say... "hey, you're NOT using spamRATS in a manner that they suggested", then point them to the section I referenced and explain that many don't use their "no PTR" list since most spam filters already do that. Maybe that could be a short term solution for you? (probably better than nothing) -- Rob McEwen http://dnsbl.invaluement.com/ rob () invaluement com +1 (478) 475-9032
Current thread:
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats, (continued)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Robert Bonomi (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Tony Finch (Jan 11)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats JP Viljoen (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Owen DeLong (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Chris Boyd (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Julian DeMarchi (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Rich Kulawiec (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Rich Kulawiec (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Barry Shein (Jan 10)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Nicolai (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Rob McEwen (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Julian DeMarchi (Jan 09)
- Re: [SHAME] Spam Rats Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Jan 10)