[SGVLUG] Mailman, SPAM Traps, and UCEProtect

[Chris Louden]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Emerson, Tom (*IC)
<Tom.Emerson at wbconsultant.com> wrote:
> >From the wiki page you referenced:
>
> "...Industry uses
> An untainted spamtrap can continue to collect samples of unsolicited messages that can be acted on by an automated anti-spam system..."
>
> The key word here is "untainted", which I would take to mean "not known to the spamming community as an actual spamtrap"  In this case, it appears they've been outed, and the spammers are using you in a joe-job fashion to cover their tracks.  I would point that out to the owners of the trap, since I presume you aren't the only one falsely being accused...

UCE Protect does not care.

>
>> -----Original Message----- Of Chris Louden
>>
>> Having an issue with a bot/spammer sending messages to a
>> mailman mailing list. ... mailman (working as it is
>> designed) responds to these messages. Sorry you are not on
>> this list please subscribe to post messages to the lists... yada yada.
>>
>> The problem is the reply to address of the messages is a
>> SPAMTAP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamtrap
>>
>> Recent message were sent from IPs in Korea but the domain
>> name was a .de.
> ...
>> The ISP is threatening a $500 fine if I can't fix this.
>
> Since you can show your system isn't broken ("...mailman /working as it is designed/...") you may be able to dispute any fine should it come to pass (but then the ISP may simply drop you - they aren't compelled to take your business...)
>
>
My ISP is sympathetic to the issue. However keeping their netblock in
is a higher priority then my business. If they opt to pay to have the
IP removed from the UCE list they will put that cost onto me, with
some markup.

What has saved me so far is the colo for my personal server and the
colo for my work servers are sister companies. They figured this out a
few weeks ago and are treating me a little better because of it.