Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 13:32:24 -0700 From: Duncan Patton a Campbell <campbell@neotext.ca> To: htabak@quadtelecom.com Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <20021228133224.4f3a774f.campbell@neotext.ca> In-Reply-To: <3E0DAAF3.7090103@quadtelecom.com> References: <3E0DAAF3.7090103@quadtelecom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=.+o60fG'uI)AlQ= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How do you find if you are on the list? And who has the list? Can they be sued? Thanks, Duncan (Dhu) Campbell On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:45:23 -0500 Harry Tabak <htabak@quadtelecom.com> wrote: > [This is a resend. Ironically, the orignal was blocked by FreeBSD's spam > filter, I've had to send this from another account] > > I am not sure which list is best for this issue, hence the cross > posting. I believe spam and anti-spam measures are security issues -- > the 'Availability' part of C-I-A. I apologize if I am wrong. A FreeBSD > ported package is contributing to an internet service availability > problem that has me stumped. I believe that an unknowable quantity of > other internet denizens are also affected. > > I'm a long time fan of FreeBSD -- I run it on my small mail server and > I've recommended it for many applications. I even bought a CD once. I > write this missive with great reluctance. I've worked with a lot of > strange software over the years, But this is a new first -- Software > that slanders! Software that publicly called me a spammer!!! And not to > my face, but to business associate. And then took action. > > I recently discovered, and quite by accident, that a FreeBSD ported > package -- spambnc (aka Spambouncer or SB) -- was blocking mail from me > to an unknown number of businesses and individuals on the internet. I'll > probably never have to correspond with most of these people, but I'm a > freelancer -- this may have already cost me a job. [Dear reader, don't > be surprised if you or your clients are also blocked. I strongly suggest > that you check it out.] > > Anti-spam products have a valuable place in the security arsenal. But, > IMHO, this product is dangerous because it includes filters and rules > that are overreaching, and inaccurate. Bad firewall rules and bad > anti-spam rules may be OK for an individual site. However, spambnc's > bad advice is being mass marketed through the good offices of FreeBSD, > and it is putting potholes in the net for the rest of us. Until it is > fixed, and proven harmless, FreeBSD should stop distributing this product. > > Basically, the default built-in policies for blocking mail aren't fully > described, and there is no mechanism to universally correct the > inevitable mistakes in a timely manner. Users (people who install this > product) are mislead about the probably of filtering the wrong mail. I > am sure that the software was developed with the very best intentions, > but in its zeal to block lots and lots of spam, SB is hurting good people. > > The SB rule blocking my mail host has nothing to do with me. Even > though, it can use dynamic anti-spam DNS services, SB hard codes its > rules for filtering bad domains by name and by IP address. My nemisis is > buried in a 1476 line file, sb-blockdomains.rc, which installs by > default, and is not documented outside the code. Along with others, it > blocks the entire 66.45.0.0/17 space because spammers might live there. > This is sort of like a corporate mail room throwing away all NJ > postmarked mail because of the bulk mail distribution centers in Secaucus. > > My mail host address gets a clean bill of health from every anti-spam > site that I can find, such as SPEWS. I've checked at least 30 of them. > > My tiny x/29 block is sub-allocated from my DSL provider's x/23 block. > The DSL provider's block is a sub-allocation from Inflow.com's > 66.45.0.0/17 block. Spambouncer doesn't like Inflow. While they have a > right to their opinions, they don't have a right to publicly tar me > because of my neighbors. > > If I read sb-blockdomains # comments correctly, it is policy to not > only block known spammers, but to ALSO block entire networks based on > their handling of spam complaints. This is like as a business > receptionist checking callerID and then ignoring incoming calls from > Verizon subscribers because Verizon tolerates (and probably invented) > telemarketing. > > I have written to both the Spambouncer contact address > <ariel@spambouncer.org> and the FreeBSD maintainer, but without a > response. Possibly they are on holiday, or spambouncer is eating my > mail. Perhaps I'm just too impatient. > > I have also contacted my ISP's support. They don't know how to help > me. They vouch for Inflow. They don't recommend it, but for a fee, my > service could be switched to a different PVC, and I'd get an address > from a different carrier. But of course, the new address could be > black-listed on a whim. > > Regardless, I assume that these are reasonable people, and that they > will oil the squeaky wheel as soon as it is convenient. But how will I > ever know that EVERY copy of spambouncer has been fixed? What about > other innocent ISP subscribers who are also black-listed? > > Harry Tabak > QUAD TELECOM, INC. > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message --=.+o60fG'uI)AlQ= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+DgpiXgQtJ7uBra8RAqkgAJ99t1zQXEa5ms4lNoUlX4n8CW7M4ACdElYV KCTMW/hMq1ylDLiwixkO5Is= =2VFc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.+o60fG'uI)AlQ=-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021228133224.4f3a774f.campbell>