-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday, 02 November 2014 10:35 -0500, 
 in article , 
 Virus Guy  wrote:

> David Ritz wrote:
 
>> Virus Twat whined:

>>> David Ritz wrote:

>>>> The only way you can determine ...

>>> There is one other way ...

>> Would you like a pony with sprinkles on top, to go with that?

> If we're discussing what features a DNSbl offers (or could offer) on
> their web portal, then there's no need to be childish about it.

You choose not to use DNSbls.  I rarely lookup anything relating to 
DNSbls using a website.  You do understand these are Domain Name 
System block lists, don't you?  They're intended to be available via 
the Domain Name System, on port 53.

You've been whining about what information you want DNSbls to include 
on their web sites for a while now.  Are you just going to keep 
whining that DNSbls don't include information that you, a single voice 
who refuses to use the information being provided in the first place, 
want included via http(s), or are you going to do something.  If 
you're not going to do anything, kindly FOAD.

The 'pony' comment isn't childish.  It's an indication that there is 
virtually zero chance your request(s) will be heeded.

> I fully realize that by giving any sort of info (like first seen, 
> last seen, or both) that a DNSbl could be providing spammers with a 
> way of knowing the identity of spamtrap addresses.

> But by providing first/last seen info in a non-machine-readable way 
> (as bitmapped image, using mild captcha-style alteration) that would 
> go a long way to making such efforts much more labor intensive.

It would seem you are the only person interested in this information.  
You have no expectations that and DNSbl will acquiesce to your desire.

> The way I see it, based on the history of many accounts that have
> existed on my system going back 10+ years and their history of being
> cancelled (yet still experiencing attempted delivery), it points to my
> impression that spammers are incredibly sloppy when it comes to address
> list management, and any address that has ever existed in the past is
> never taken off lists regardless how many "non-existent account" errors
> their zombie relays receive during spam runs.

Spammers regularly send to addresses which have never existed.  
Spammers send to Usenet Message-IDs.  That they send to dead addresses 
is hardly an earth shattering discovery.

>> DNSbls generally do not include the date and time information

> DNSbl's are only a curiosity from my point of view - seeing that my
> server is not actually tied into them in the first place.

It's your choice not to use contemporary server software.  That you 
choose not to be able to use the information provided directly by 
DNSbls isn't anyone else's problem; it's yours.

So far as the industry is concerned, these 'curiosities' are useful 
tools.  It's your choice not to use them, even though a great deal of 
your spam load, including malware, can be dropped at connect, prior to 
SMTP negotiation.  More can be dropped at handshake, before DATA, 
based on DNSbls and URIbls.  Finally, body scans can use DNSbls, 
URIbls and tools like Baysian filtering, AV scanning, Pyzor, Razor2 
and Vernon Schryver's DCC.

>> I would seriously recommend including C&C warnings, when you do 
>> [send your suggestions to DNSbl maintainers].

> Whether or not any DNSbl's include C&C hosts is of no concern or use 
> to me, but I am curious as to whether C&C's are actually used to 
> send spam (directly - direct-to-mx that is).

I'm sorry.  I should have been more specific.  I'm not referring to 
Command and Control.  (What would a Command and Control 'warning' be?)

I'm suggesting you include a Coffee and Cat warning, so that whoever 
receives and reads your request put down their coffee and remove the 
cat from their lap.  This warning is useful, so that monitors and 
keyboards are not sprayed with coffee shooting out of one's nose, nor 
sleeping cats startled in such a way as to require first aid to the 
recipient's lap.

    Subject: [C&C] A request regarding your DNSbl's /web site/.

C&C warnings are a courtesy.

- -- 
David Ritz 
 "(The Internet is) the largest equivalence class in the reflexive
  transitive symmetric closure of the relationship `can be reached by
  an IP packet form'."                                - Seth Breidbart

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0

iEYEARECAAYFAlRWedYACgkQUrwpmRoS3utgPACfWd1SpMh7X3W2oArlwGR4ZgYH
ic8AoIw/grWshuyF61+tDJuKd2vVOO2U
=Qh6B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2