- anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: Too big to fail
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 19 Jun '17

19 Jun '17

Andre You’re claiming that Twitter is a spammer, yet you haven’t provided any evidence that they are. What makes them a spammer? Any emails I’ve seen from them have been 100% legit and if there’s any I personally get that I don’t want I simply unsubscribe. In common with any other company that provides email services we get a LOT of email from social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. It’s not spam. So I really fail to understand what it is you’re actually complaining about. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: Too big to fail
by Ronald F. Guilmette 19 Jun '17

19 Jun '17

ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: >But the simple truth is that Twitter is arguably the largest 'legal' >spammer on the planet and they are unstoppable... Again, at the risk of repeating myself, they are by no means "unstoppable". In fact, it would take me personally all of about 9 seconds to run vi on my own local mail server domain blacklist file to add the domain name "twitter.com" to that list. And if I did so, then I would never get any email from them whatsoever, ever again, forever, guarranteed. And I personally would not hesitate at all to do exactly that if they were to spam me. Hummm... gee. I have a *lot* of domains that I've added to my local domains blacklist over the years.... hundreds in fact. There being so many of them, there's no way that I can remember them all. So I just now went and did a grep. And do you know what? I swear, I didn't even remember putting this there, so I must have put it in there a long time ago... perhaps years and years ago... but yes, actually, now that you mention it, I *do* have an entry in my own local HELO/EHLO blacklist of "twitter.com". There are two implications of that statment: 1) Yes, actually, once upon a time, they must have spammed me too. I would not have added that domain to that list unless they had done so. 2) The list entry in question effectively blocks any and all incoming email messages where the HELO/EHLO string offered by the SMTP client is either "twitter.com" (case insensitive) or else some subdomain thereof. So there you have it. Proof positive that... contrary to your assertion... even the mighty twitter.com is in fact -very- "stoppable". (Locally, I have completely stopped them cold.) I feel quite confident in asserting to you, and to everyone, that since the day that domain was inducted into my local blacklist, they have not successfully spammed me a single time. Furthermore, if more mail system adminitrators would do as I do, and take a hard line and adopt a zero tolerance policy, even against the "big names" then eventually the bad practices of these companies would start to cost them money, and at that point they would be forced to discontinue employing them. So, really, the only question left is: Why don't both mail system administrators *and* millions of end users everywhere do as I do and vote "no" on spam? Why don't they all blacklist the bad senders? And the answer is what it always has been: "It's complicated." The admins of big mail *receivers* (e.g. comcast, aol, etc.) fear that if they did so, many of their less educated users would take this as a "defect" rather than as a "feature" and would bolt to other providers. But individual end users can each also take their own unilateral action against the bad actors, and if enough of them do so, then eventually it will make an impact. So why don't they? Well, unfortunately, an awful lot of them are just plain ignorant, and many fo them don't even know that they have even the -capability- in theeir own hands and in their own mail clients to block specific domains and to this "vote no" on spam. In short, it is an education problem. There was a similar problem some years ago when a major effort was launched to finally and fully eradicate smallpox. There were some backwards villagers in the wilds of rural Pakistan who just couldn't be convinced that smallpox wasn't "the will of god". As you may have noticed, in the American political system also, bad outcomes accrue in the presence of a poorly educated populace. It is incumbant upon us, the class of netizens who understand the problem, to educate our less well educated brethern and fellow Internet users on the importance of not just putting up with it when this big company or that big company takes a dump in your inbox. Speaking only for myself, I certainly attempt to provide such education at every opportunity, and only wish that others would do likewise. covfefe

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: Too big to fail
by Esa Laitinen 19 Jun '17

19 Jun '17

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:49 AM ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > As I said: All ethical, honest and functional blocklists lists Twitter > as a Spammer. - It seems that at least 25% do actually list Twitter as a > spammer, and that is quite a lot. So maybe there is hope after all? > While I can certainly believe Twitter is a spam enabler, I did a small test. I created a new twitter account, but didn't confirm the account. I cannot send messages to this account from my other twitter account. So, I couldn't make twitter to facilitate email spam in this case. I do get email from Twitter when somebody sends me a direct message to my real twitter account. I chose to receive these notifications, thus the emails are not spam, and it would be wrong of me to report those emails as spam, even if the direct message is spam. Question raises: does the user you were using as an example have a twitter account connected with that email address? And has he selected to receive emails for direct messages (or something else) in twitter? Yours, esa

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: Too big to fail
by Ronald F. Guilmette 19 Jun '17

19 Jun '17

ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: >"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg(a)tristatelogic.com> wrote: >> Personally, I've never seen a single piece of *email* spam >> from Twitter. So this is news to me. Can you post a sample >> please? ... >Envelope-to: x What's this? Did you redact it? If so, why? We already know what your email address is. >To: x <x> What's this? Did you redact it? If so, why? We already know what your email address is. Anyway, have you ever tried to figure out why you are so lucky? I mean why -you- get all of these alleged spam emails from Twitter and yet some other people who also have Twitter accounts... such as me for example... aren't being blessed with any such? And anyway, if you don't like the gunk you are getting from this one domain, twitter.com, why don't you just block all emails from twitter.com? Do you not know how to do that? If not, maybe we can find someone who can help you with setting up domain-specific blocking for your specific email client. covfefe

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: Too big to fail
by Ronald F. Guilmette 19 Jun '17

19 Jun '17

ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: >Firstly, someone cannot just start sending you bulk emails each day >without you ever having asked for those emails. > >Anyone can maybe send you one email and check if they have the correct >email address and, if you do not reply or respond, maybe two or even >three 'confirmation' emails.. > >Twitter specifically, sends out the same confirmation emails, forever > >And; > >Twitter does not require opt in, to start sending you spam. Once they >have your email address, the spam keeps on coming and coming. Yes. Failure to do proper "confirmed opt in" is indeed a common and widespread failing on the part of -many- big companies. I would be willing to believe that Twitter is one such company. I do not and never will condone such selfish, greedy, sloppy, and anti-social practices, no matter what companies engage in them, and regardless of the sizes of such companies. However this problem is easily handled by those individual users who are specifically the victims of such sloppy practices. They can block inbound email from the offending domain(s) themselves, in their own mail programs. (This is sometimes called "voting with your feet".) As long as the companies involved do not begin to use so-called "snowshoe" spamming tactics, it is easy for all those they offend with their sloppy and anti-social practices to simply block their mails. If enough millions of people do that, then eventually they will go out of business and good riddance to them. But blocking spams from specific and individual "point sources" like this isn't something that is only in the hands of Spamcop or Spamhaus or any other blacklist. This is somdething that indivduals can and should do for themselves. covfefe

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: Too big to fail
by Richard Hartmann 19 Jun '17

19 Jun '17

I might be missing something, but that email body contains an opt-out link, the header includes List-Unsubscribe:, and you seem to receive the email. Isn't there a somewhat obvious path to improvement, here? Richard

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: Too big to fail
by Ronald F. Guilmette 19 Jun '17

19 Jun '17

Andre wrote: >Twitter has millions of 'fake' accounts, and accounts that use >spamtrap email addresses, from stolen data. How is that a problem for anyone but Twitter? (Coincidentally, I happened to be discussing the Twitter fake accounts problem with some other folks recently. One guy who works for a security firm claims to have spotted one set of around 200,000 of them. I myself saw someone on a hacker forum claiming to have just simply "bought" 30,000 Twitter followers. My reaction to both of these bits of news is just to yawn. I don't see how any of it affects -me-. This is Twitter's problem. It's their walled garden. If they elect not to properly police it, well then, as the old saying goes, they are shitting where they eat, and it will catch up to them eventually. As long as they are not sending spam -to me- ... which they aren't... I don't see why I should give a damn.) You also wrote: >Twitter is by far the worst spammer of all the multinationals, Personally, I've never seen a single piece of *email* spam from Twitter. So this is news to me. Can you post a sample please?

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: Too big to fail
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 19 Jun '17

19 Jun '17

On 19-Jun-2017, at 10:55 AM, ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > > Of course, you would not be asking that question :) True. I have other and better questions to ask.

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: Too big to fail
by ox 19 Jun '17

19 Jun '17

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:07:19 +0200 ox <andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: > The largest white listed spammer on the planet is so powerful.... > is this spammer a criminal? Oh, no, this spammer is regarded so > highly, that it, like many other huge multi nationals, can simply do > anything they want or like. > Nobody can file complaints at SpamCop.net (/dev/nul) as quite simply > it is a waste of time. > try it for yourself. I have personally filed thousands of reports, > daily over many years, and it is simply a waste of time. > > When one looks at sender reputation, it is so very simple to just see > how much "sender score" actually means and how much it is about money > and power. > For example, one IP number: > http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/199.16.156.171.html > > had this been your or my IP number, we would not be able to relay > emails anywhere. > > but, the playing field is not level. > > Multinationals run the planet and as I have said elsewhere, many > times, we no longer buy products, we are the products. We are like > chickens in a chicken factory, simply marking time, ignorant of our > purpose. > So, what can a RIPE abuse WG discuss about such powerful abusers? > Nothing, as we are all powerless against this spammer. > Interestingly, we (as in us, the people) are becoming less and less > in control each and every day. And, not, this is not my tinfoil hat > that needs adjustment, this is simple statistical fact. > And, yes, to be clear - this is a Twitter IP number. But you can also do similar searches on other multinationals... Twitter is by far the worst spammer of all the multinationals, at least some of the others 'pretend' to care... The behavior is much the same - They are too big to fail (or care) Andre

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse: Too big to fail
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 19 Jun '17

19 Jun '17

That is a Twitter IP What email from twitter are you receiving that isn’t because you have a twitter account? And what blocklist out there except the obscure and kooky is actually listing twitter? --srs On 19/06/17, 10:39 AM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net on behalf of andre(a)ox.co.za> wrote: For example, one IP number: http://multirbl.valli.org/lookup/199.16.156.171.html had this been your or my IP number, we would not be able to relay emails anywhere. but, the playing field is not level.

2 1