Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


ivmSIP/24
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

ivmSIP/24

Does anyone have any experience with ivmSIP/24?

ivmSIP/24 is the invaluement /24 Sender’s IP DNSBL. Aka an “RBL”, this list includes those whole /24 blocks of IPs which only send spam. We recognize that the concept of /24 blacklists is not some amazing new idea we thought up. However, ivmSIP24 has two interesting distinctions:

>

  1. Unlike most other /24 DNSBLs, ivmSIP/24 is attempting to have the same extremely low false positive level as ivmSIP. In contrast, other /24 DNSBLs will admit that they are aggressive to a point where blocking legitimate e-mail is almost a given if used for outright blocking instead of scoring.

  2. Because all three invaluement DNSBLs are especially good at catching snowshoe spam, ivmSIP/24 is particularly useful for preemptively catching these same snowshoe spammers before a given IP is used to send spam the very first time. As a result, /24 blocks freshly allocated to snowshoe spammers will most likely get listed by ivmSIP/24 before getting listed by all other respected /24 DNSBLs.

I had not encountered them until today (a false positive on their part), although their website looks like it's from ~1998. The concept seems a bit flawed on first blush.

«13

Comments

  • I don't know, but by default (I think) if my anti-spam server gets an outrageous amount of spam or auth errors from a IP address it will block or delay the /24 block for a short time. It scores an IP based on the history of the /24 block that its in.

  • gestiondbigestiondbi Member, Patron Provider

    Yes we got some issue with them. But they unlist IP very fast.

    Thanked by 1HostNun
  • For context, I made this thread because I discovered this organization had listed an entire /26 of mine today. I think it's a false positive because 1) the IPs they have listed are not in any other RBLs, they are the lone lister and 2) I use—and/or have used in the past—a fair amount of the listed IPs for various purposes, none of which were ever involved in sending any email at all!

    This is not a complaint as I haven't attempted to get the block delisted yet (the listing doesn't seem to matter or have any effect). Nonetheless, it's somewhat irritating... at the very least, the thought of IPs getting added to an RBL when they don't even send any email to begin with seems wrong.

    Right now I'm guessing the /26 I received from my upstream is part of a larger /24, the other three quarters of which are not mine. Maybe someone else's /25 was spamming?

    tl;dr another Spamhaus-like problem, but on a smaller scale, it seems. I thought it would be interesting to juxtapose with the recent Spamhaus/CC discussions.

  • HostNun:

    This is Rob McEwen the owner/operator of ivmSIP/24. I couldn't find any removal requests from any e-mail address containing "hostnun"... if you'll message me (on this forum) your /26 block, I'll take a look and let you know what I find. I'll ALSO report my findings to this thread too, but keeping your IPs confidential (assuming that is desired?).

    PS - I don't normally "stalk" discussions like this, but every few months, I take a look around to see what is being said about my blacklists... and then I try to engage in the discussion to see what perspectives/feedback I might learn from. It is a QOS-thing.

  • gestiondbigestiondbi Member, Patron Provider

    @invaluement said:
    HostNun:

    This is Rob McEwen the owner/operator of ivmSIP/24. I couldn't find any removal requests from any e-mail address containing "hostnun"... if you'll message me (on this forum) your /26 block, I'll take a look and let you know what I find. I'll ALSO report my findings to this thread too, but keeping your IPs confidential (assuming that is desired?).

    PS - I don't normally "stalk" discussions like this, but every few months, I take a look around to see what is being said about my blacklists... and then I try to engage in the discussion to see what perspectives/feedback I might learn from. It is a QOS-thing.

    If you accept suggestion, a new website design will be cool. ;)

  • @davidgestiondbi said:
    If you accept suggestion, a new website design will be cool. ;)

    working on it. thanks!

    Thanked by 2gestiondbi netomx
  • HostNunHostNun Member
    edited November 2014

    @invaluement Hi, thanks for responding here. I don't see any need to make a removal request for the time being. The listing seems to be unrelated to my /26 and has no effect as far as I can tell. On the other hand, if a client complains, I'll take a closer look.

    I mostly thought it was amusing to see a bunch of IPs recently listed in a lone RBL despite having never been used for email (...or at least not for multiple months prior to the listing, and I don't recall how they were allocated at that time, but they weren't on any blacklists then either).

    For now, I think it's preferrable to remain listed without rhyme or reason as proof of concept, but if whoever is responsible for the rest of the /24 ends up getting it delisted, I wouldn't mind that either.

  • invaluementinvaluement Member
    edited November 2014

    Unlike how many conceive the /24 blacklist, ivmSIP/24 OFTEN lists only subranges of a /24 block, leaving innocent bystanders who occupy only parts of that /24 block... unlisted, even as egregious spammers who control OTHER parts... are blacklisted. In fact, currently 18% of all /24 blocks listed on ivmSIP/24 are parsed out into separate sublistings to avoid collateral damage. That is a lot when considering that the vast majority of ivmSIP/24 listings involve spammers who own the entire /24 block.

    This surgical targeting is often automated at the front end, but is most effective for bypassing IPs which (a) ALREADY have built up some amount of "good reputation", and/or (b) have their rDNSes (aka ptr records) set up correctly to convey proper identity. Since the vast majority of legit mail-sending IPs DO those things... that means that very little slips past ivmSIP/24's ability to surgically avoid innocent bystanders.

    We also use ARIN and other IP whois records to further refine that process.

    But no system is perfect and it is especially difficult to bypass IPs which haven't ever been used for e-mail and therefore have ZERO "good reputation" built up (and therefore whose listings do NOT cause FPs anyways).

    But if you, nevertheless, believe this is damaging your business, please do submit some removal requests and you'll most likely delist quickly off of ivmSIP/24.

    But we're not your MAIN problem. Your main problem is that... if you're as innocent as you claim, then you're very likely in the same "neighborhood" as some egregious spammers... and that will likely drag your reputation down for any IPs used to send e-mail. in such a case, even if you evade ivmSIP/24, Many of the largest ISPs have internal lists that operation similar to ivmSIP/24, but are not as good at preventing collateral damage (they just always list the whole /24 block)... and these don't participate on mxtoolbox.

    If you're not careful, those will catch up with you! I recommend moving to a cleaner /24 block, and not allowing yourself to be a "human shield" protecting the reputation of spammers that are hosed on your same /24 block--if that is the case.. I can't know for sure until I see what range you're talking about... but I strongly suspect that this range has many "poor" ratings on other IPs on this same /24 block... if you were to check on this /24 on senderbase DOT org.

    In the meantime, I'll be happy to research these IPs further, and carve them off of ivmSIP/24... once I can verify that your IPs are different from the nearby spammers' IPs on that same /24 block... and once you reveal your IP range.

  • HostNunHostNun Member
    edited November 2014

    @invaluement said:

    But if you, nevertheless, believe this is damaging your business, please do submit some removal requests and you'll most likely delist quickly off of ivmSIP/24.

    Oh, no, I thought I made it clear that I believed it wasn't damaging my business. That's why I would prefer to remain listed without cause! It's interesting to me to see how long the false positive will remain active, especially when it has no effect.

    I don't mean to say that your organization has no effect in general, but that it could not possibly have an effect on IPs that aren't even being used to send email.

    But we're not your MAIN problem. Your main problem is that... if you're as innocent as you claim, then you're very likely in the same "neighborhood" as some egregious spammers... and that will likely drag your reputation down for any IPs used to send e-mail. in such a case, even if you evade ivmSIP/24, Many of the largest ISPs have internal lists that operation similar to ivmSIP/24, but are not as good at preventing collateral damage (they just always list the whole /24 block)... and these don't participate on mxtoolbox.

    If you're not careful, those will catch up with you!

    Why? I don't send bulk email or spam. I am not 'evading' ivmSIP/24 either. On the contrary, I'm openly leaving the IPs in your database as false positives in order to test a theory.

    As far as I know, the bulk of the IPs aren't/weren't used to send email, nor are they listed anywhere else. The fact that they don't appear in any other blacklists would seem to suggest that they weren't being used to send spam. So, what difference will remaining incoherently listed in ivmSIP/24 make to me or my business? I don't think it will negatively effect the reputation of Host Nun at all... but what about the reputation of ivmSIP/24?

    Otherwise, I am not sure why 'spam blocking' organizations would 'catch up' with someone who doesn't spam for no other reason than the latter being arbitrarily allocated IP addresses—by their upstream provider, outside of their control—in the same 'neighborhood' (to use your word) as spammers. The whole point of this thread is that it would be ridiculous and pernicious for that to happen, so to see you suggesting it as a possibility if I'm "not careful" comes off as a bit bizarre, to say the least.

    I recommend moving to a cleaner /24 block, and not allowing yourself to be a "human shield" protecting the reputation of spammers that are hosed on your same /24 block

    & last but not least, the silly terrorism associations. By simply using IPs that reside within the same /24 as alleged spammers, and without even knowing it, I have suddenly become their human shield?

    I am not 'protecting' anyone. You say "your /24 block" but it is not 'my' /24, I was allocated a /26. I can't help that my upstream provider gave me a /26 that happens to be part of the larger /24. Host Nun is a smaller provider. I don't make any IP allocation decisions at this juncture, I simply accept what I am given.

    With that said, I think it's a bit loony and irresponsible for you to claim that I'm "protecting the reputation of spammers" on account of simply being given a /26 (again, allocated to me outside of my control) that is part of a /24, the larger portion of which was not allocated to me and does not belong to me in any sense at all.

    As you know, /24s are sometimes divvied up among multiple providers/individuals/whoever. The problem is your willingness to punish innocent people who end up getting 'caught in the crossfire', to quote @aglodek's thread from last July.

  • invaluementinvaluement Member
    edited November 2014

    It sounds like you want the problem more than the solution? ...just to try to prove a point? ...but any such point is undermined if (a) you're not willing to subject your own IPs to scrutiny and (b) you claim that the IPs are not even used to send e-mail, and (c) you claim that you're not impacted by the listing.

    I'm not worried about how your situation impacts ivmSIP/24's reputation because the bottom line is that this scenario you described puts my subscribers in a situation where this particular listing (a) blocks spam--(or I can safely assume so since you won't reveal the IPs), -AND- (b) doesn't block legit e-mail. That is all that my subscribers desire to happen, and would ever ask for.

    NOTE: Also, recall that I previously stated that IF your IPs WERE used to send legitimate e-mail, then some of the metrics we use to narrow ivmSIP/24 listings, to bypass innocent bystanders... WOULD possibly be in play...but are NOT available since your /26 block is not used to send mail, according to you.

    Whatever you think you've proved, one thing is for sure... anyone reading your initial post would have had the mistaken impression that you had caught ivmSIP/24 blocking legitimate desired mail. But by the end of this thread, it became clear that such was NOT the case. (even as you continue to use the "false positive" label... I find that, and your bothering to start a thread on something you LATER claim doesn't actually effect you... to be very, very interesting... hmmmm)

    But if I could show you that egregious spammers were using other parts of your same /24 block, and you were to decide to continue to stay on your /26 block after knowing that... then hell yes... you then WOULD be allowing yourself to be a "human shield" for the spammers. Why? Because (a) you'd then be financially supporting a spam-friendly org, and (b) you'd be making it more difficult for such a spammer org to be preemptively blacklisted... such as getting broad SpamHaus SBL record.

    In the real world of fighting spam, this is a serious issue that I deal with often... where a purposely spam-friendly hoster will have 99.9% spammy clients, but then will gain 0.1% legit clients (mostly through those legit clients' ignorance).. and then they try to use the 0.1% legit clients as human shields to prevent WELL DESERVED!!!! large scale blacklistings, such as SpamHaus SBL records or having their domain listed on SURBL... I get to see these situations first hand. Whether the uninformed legit client knows it or now, his business with the spammer (or spam friendly host)... is allowing himself to be used as a human shield for the spammer... just as a terrorist who fires a missile from a neighborhood is using the civilians in that neighborhood as "human shields"... (notice that in this analogy, the terrorist is the deliberate spammer, NOT you.. so please note that I have NOT equated YOU with being a terrorist anywhere on this thread!). Ethical people may at some point in time be used as human shields without their knowledge. But ethical people would never allow themselves to be used as human shields (either by a terrorist, or by a spammer) if given the choice!

    But I suppose you could claim "ignorance" in the meantime... or for now? To be clear, I never meant that you had intentionally allowed yourself to be used as a "human shield"... but hopefully you now have more insight into this situation!

    Thanked by 2iKeyZ k0nsl
  • invaluementinvaluement Member
    edited November 2014

    I forgot to mention... my wording "even if you evade ivmSIP/24" didn't come across as intended... I should have said:

    "even if a spammer evades ivmSIP/24 OR even if an innocent bystander is NOT listed on ivmSIP/24--which OFTEN happens since ivmSIP/24 OFTEN carves out exception ranges, listing only the spammer's subranges"

    Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to "evade" ivmSIP/24.

    But, again, even when these things happen.. internal blacklists used by the large ISPs, which do NOT participate in MX Toolbox, or Valli.org ... will OFTEN start causing legit mail to be blocked, even if those IPs are not listed on ivmSIP/24. (if the /24 is split between spammers and legit senders)

    This is sort of like what happens if you move to a house sandwiched between a "crack house" and a "prostitution ring"... occasional stray bullets fly through your windows! Likewise, even if someone is NOT listed on ivmSIP/24, but they host mail on the same /24 block as spammers... they will OFTEN find that their mail to the large ISPs OFTEN gets blocked.

    Fortunately, such a person's complaints to their hoster (and/or voting with their feet to leave their hoster)... create a MUCH NEEDED economic incentive for hosters to keep their networks spam-free. Again, this is a fact-of-life even for situations where ivmSIP/24 did NOT list the innocent bystander's IPs.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited November 2014

    @invaluement this sounds suspiciously close to spamhaus/uceprotect rhetoric. Just that escalation is done automatically and does not matter the allocation at all. From what I can tell, even uceprotect which asks for money for delisting, i.e. are pure ransomware, cares for ASN allocations and would not list the whole /24 if part of it belongs to someone else and did not send spam. I cannot test this theory, but since they do list on ASN, it would be logical to assume it.
    In the end, these schemes will fade away, even established ones are losing credibility when doing politics and holding innocents to ransom, not to mention the new ones. The whole concept is flawed, the only thing we use is to look up these lists to find spammers in our networks, some are sending emails to notify us, so I highly appreciate spamcop for this reason as well as blocklist.de, those are useful for hacked wordpress or other php installations which are sending low levels of spam not triggering our filters or are hacked VMs used to spampost/autoregister or look for vulnerabilities. If you really wish to fight spam, you set up a similar scheme, if you are in it to make money from ransom or collect from some spammers or big hosts to eliminate their competition like most people, well, good luck, it wont work, times changed.

    I remember when spamhaus listed a whole /23 for 2 incidents, for a few months we enjoyed much fewer spammers trying to sign up with customers learning to use mandrill or similar free schemes for their limited needs, it was not unpleasant, I really hoped they will list all our AS as promised, but didnt in the end. many of the spammers we catch with the help of serious lists such as barracuda or senderbase are not in the ransomware ones which proves how efficient they are int he first place.

  • I'd consider ivmsip/24 as the terrorist - destroying a entire /24 range with potentially innocent people in them just because of a grudge against a hosting provider. You can write all you want but that's not justifiable.

    Thanked by 2aglodek foetti
  • invaluementinvaluement Member
    edited November 2014

    @Maounique said:
    and does not matter the allocation at all.

    @Mark_R said:
    destroying a entire /24 range with potentially innocent people in them just because of a grudge against a hosting provider.

    NOT true. We DO use ip-whois data to narrow listings to ranges smaller than a /24 when spammers and legit senders are allocated different parts of the same /24 block.

    And we use a number of other techniques to narrow the ranges to avoid collateral damage as well.

    I have already stated this. Nothing stated in my previous 2 comments, or anywhere else, contradicts this.

    You are both spewing fiction to create the problems you WANT to complain about... but they have zero basis in fact with regards to ivmSIP/24.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    Then the host nun incident did not happen, you checked everything and found no spam from hose IPs, therefore you did not blacklist them, right?
    This is a place where we call BS, go to godaddy and explain how good you are against the smaller providers, they might give you a bone.

  • Looks like Mao found some friends for wall of text contest.

  • Mao is a good friend to chat and argue :) he sometimes has extreme unthinkable opinion that different from the main stream but most of them are quite refreshing.

  • @Maounique said:
    Then the host nun incident did not happen, you checked everything and found no spam from hose IPs, therefore you did not blacklist them, right?

    So far, nobody on this thread, including host nun, has been willing to share example IPs. You CONTINUE to spew fiction.

    This is a place where we call BS, go to godaddy and explain how good you are against the smaller providers, they might give you a bone.

    Actually, I'm on public record, via twitter, lashing out at Godaddy for their poor practices: horrific PTR records that don't convey proper identity, high outbound spam rates, slow reactions to abuse of their network by spammers, etc. Your "against the smaller providers" is MORE fiction.

    I'm happy to take criticism and I'm willing/able to make adjustments to my practices to improve my services... but I can't fix what isn't actually happening... and I can't react to speculation that has no basis in reality.

    At this point, I suggest those on this thread who desire to criticize invalument "put up or shut up" and stop lying about my blacklists.

    Thanked by 1vRozenSch00n
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited November 2014

    invaluement said: Actually, I'm on public record, via twitter, lashing out at Godaddy for their poor practices: horrific PTR records that don't convey proper identity, high outbound spam rates, slow reactions to abuse of their network by spammers, etc. Your "against the smaller providers" is MORE fiction.

    OK, so you go first, show us the /24s blacklisted from godaddy.

    I am checking at uceprotect, another ransomware:
    http://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=blacklist:50.62.161.10&run=toolpage
    They list the /24 because of 17 occurrences in the past week. It should certainly make your blocklists, right?
    That particular IP is blacklisted per se, including by a serious list such as barracuda, if you are indeed not just another hunter for small providers money, you should certainly blocklist that too? Not to mention the /24, with so many occurrences, 17 out of 256, that is a spammerheaven where the spammers use the innocent bystanders to hide, but you will bust their ass, and force the innocent people move and vote with their feet, right? Show your might, go for real spammers, no matter the size and stop pretending you are doing something on twitter where you only help spreading the GoDaddy word and those like it.

    P.S. OT, but not really, spamhaus does NOT list it either so does everyone understand what I mean here?

  • invaluementinvaluement Member
    edited November 2014

    @Maounique said:
    OK, so you go first, show us the /24s blacklisted from godaddy.

    This past year, I eventually had to delist many of the Godaddy IPs (those that I was aware of... and this is generally speaking)... because the complaints about False Positives was too high. Remember, I try to run a low-collateral-damage blacklist. So seeing that some spam was still spewing... pissed me off... and my only recourse was to tar and feather Godaddy on twitter. But I don't recall ever doing any large-scale whitelisting of them... so I think their IPs are subject to getting relisted.

    Ironic that you would be so protecting of hosters who sell IP space to spammers.. NOT wanting their other innocent customers to be harmed by a blacklisting. But yet you think that Godaddy's innocent bystander customers are "fair game"... hmmmmm? That sounds hypocritical to me.

    But I can safely say that we avoid "collateral damage" (in BOTH situations) unless the ham/spam ratios are insanely bad... and/or malicious intent to support spammers can be established. (I have to draw a line SOMEWHERE... or the abuse gets ridiculous)

    PS - take your ransomeware complaints elsewhere... we don't accept "pay for removal"

  • invaluementinvaluement Member
    edited November 2014

    To be clear, the invaluement lists attempt to prevent collateral damage BOTH by (a) NOT listing legit IPs on the same /24 block as spammers, AND (b) NOT listing shared IPs that have legit uses. (but, again, when the ham/spam ratios get ridiculous, then we gladly blacklist those shared IPs... in contrast, some of the other non-spamhaus blacklists you mention are too aggressive with shared IPs and cause rather high collateral damage)

    Regarding "large ISPs"... here is a better example... just in the past year or so, the EXTREMELY large ESP YesMail (a division of InfoUSA... which is HUGE!!)... started having lots of problems with sending spam. I became aware of this due to abuse I was seeing first-hand... complaints about spam from my own users... AND from the mainslease blog. more info on this is found here:

    http://mainsleaze.spambouncer.org/?s=yesmail

    In response, I did a MASSIVE... UNwhitelisting of YesMail IPs in our invaluement whitelist. Sure enough, YesMail IPs started getting on our ivmSIP and ivmSIP/24 blacklists.

    InfoUSA responded with removal requests... LOTS of them.

    We responded back explaining that the amount of messages sent to addresses which had never subscribed.. was too high to justify a removal. Furthermore, there was an ongoing issue because their parent company, infoUSA... advertised the selling of e-mail lists on their web sites. That is a HUGE mark against infoUSA/YesMail..

    Therefore, as I mentioned, they stayed blacklisted for many many months.

    Eventually, I found sincere willingness on their end to make some changes... improve their processes. They also explained that they were functionally separate from infoUSA, and thus shouldn't have the "selling lists" counting against them. (though that is still a VERY debatable argument).

    So eventually I made adjustments for them to make it a little harder for their IPs to blacklist (but without whitelisting them). I sort of met them half way.

    But it took some willingness for them to crack down on abuse, along with me seeing some of the legit uses of their IP space.

    I try to with work with senders who are trying in good faith to stop their abuse. But if we had a pro-large-ISP bias that was somehow personal, infoUSA wouldn't have been blacklisted.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited November 2014

    invaluement said: But yet you think that Godaddy's innocent bystander customers are "fair game"... hmmmmm? That sounds hypocritical to me.

    So, I see. I did not say you SHOULD blacklist godaddy, but, since youa re ok with collateral damage from small providers, you should treat the big ones the same. I mean the big ones are fair game TOO.
    You defend your right to force people to vote with their feet because they cannot pay the big prices and get the bad service GD offers and so go to smaller providers which are then, fair game because they should have known better go to big providers with lawyers and all (you "had to" delist GD) and go for small people which are more likely to pay you off. And don't give me that crap about not accepting payment for removal, probably not int he open, to pay taxes for it, but nobody can stop you from receiving gifts from your "good behaving" hosts. This is how it works... once you have sufficient traction. For now, nobody gives a s**t.
    Guess what, you wont be able to get a nice slice of the pie, after spamhaus will discredit themselves and uceprotect will run out of money because less and less people pay them up, for example, there will not be others to take their place big providers will use own lists and algorythms and the little ones will at most do a weighted list and serious ones such as barracuda, senderbase, even spamcop, will weight way more than a lone shark who is the only lister of some /24 in order to "avoid collateral damage".
    Whom do you think you are fooling? You will see it will not work people are getting smart, who uses your lists, well, they deserve their fate.

  • the fate of my subscribers is... hosters/orgs/isps with happy end users... where more mail NOT desired by end users goes into the spam folder... and LESS mail desired by end users goes into the spam folder. I am economically incentivised to work toward that goal. I simply don't have the time, motivation, or incentive... to play all the junior high school-ish games you describe. And the process isn't so... personal.

    Thanked by 1vRozenSch00n
  • Mark_RMark_R Member
    edited November 2014

    We all should use properly configured anti-spam software instead of some random shitlist that's being maintained by a grudge holding dickhead.

    Thanked by 2doughmanes MartinD
  • Maounique said: From what I can tell, even uceprotect which asks for money for delisting, i.e. are pure ransomware, cares for ASN allocations and would not list the whole /24 if part of it belongs to someone else and did not send spam.

    Incorrect. UCEPROTECT will delist after 7 days if the issue goes away. You neckbeards see that they offer delisting for money then start flipping out. Spamhaus is and will continue to be the worst blacklist extortion scheme ever. I hope Steve Linford sees this and his little sidekick Rob Schultz who will state something, not honor what he said and ignore you for upwards of 48 hours.

  • I would take ivmsip/24 more seriously if they don't blacklist crap for a 12 months+ on really old IPs but if somebody contacts support about blacklists then is overly worried about ivmsip/24, most likely you've got a spammer on your hands.

  • doughmanesdoughmanes Member
    edited November 2014

    @invaluement ignore Maounique. [Offensive content removed. S.]

  • invaluement said: So far, nobody on this thread, including host nun, has been willing to share example IPs.

    That's exactly my thought too.

    @HostNun - What's about to simply ask what's going on with specific range of IPs to get some more specific answers?
    You may not have the same chance with some bigger more known blacklist organization, but maintainer of this one is here, obviously willing to give some more detailed explanation and work with you.

  • @invaluement said:
    It sounds like you want the problem more than the solution?

    There is no problem. As I've said multiple times now, the listing has no effect. None of my clients have complained. If it starts effecting clients, I will contact you to get the IPs delisted.

    I'm not disputing the truthfulness of whether the other 75% of the IPs in the /24 belong to spammers or not, it's very possible that they do. I'm only calling into question your broad brush approach. Hopefully you can appreciate the opportunity I've given you to explain your methods to the public.

  • @Spirit you're right, but LET isn't ivmSIP/24's help desk as far as I know. :) I will contact them privately about specific IPs if I need to, this thread is for abstract/conceptual discussion.

Sign In or Register to comment.