Spam Cannibal DNSBL?

That's correct.

Note I'm still using it myself, and may continue to use it, but I think it's too aggressive for some folk.

Jeff
 
gerrybakker said:
Any Spamcannibal whitelists yet? Major ISPs etc.
Click to expand...

By the lack of response, I guess not. Jeff must be out of town or something....I had a very large bid for a domain name lost because the guy's email got rejected by Spamcannibal.

I asked this....will ask again, hoping someone has already done it

So, for us to remove it(spamcannibal) now we should comment out these lines in excim.conf?

deny message = Email blocked by SPAMCANNIBAL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/blocked.html
hosts = !+relay_hosts
domains = +use_rbl_domains
!authenticated = *
dnslists = bl.spamcannibal.org

Then restart exim ?

Thanks
 
Thom, please look at the top post on this page. Look at the first two words.

That was my answer to how to shut off SpamCannibal.

I think you may have missed it because it ended up on a separate page.

(I post in my siglines when I'm on vacation.)

Jeff
 
jlasman said:
Thom, please look at the top post on this page. Look at the first two words.

That was my answer to how to shut off SpamCannibal.

I think you may have missed it because it ended up on a separate page.
Click to expand...

Ah...now that you've explained it...makes sense ... thanks.
 
Just an update that Spam Cannibal is still blindly blacklisting large email providers. This time hotmail @ 65.54.246.174 (bay0-omc2-s38.bay0.hotmail.com). This one was caught by a friend of mine which I will be removing this blacklist.

Code: 
Click for WhoisIP: 65.54.246.174  US	US
 	bay0-omc2-s38.bay0.hotmail.com

spam source
see
65.54.246.79
65.54.246.99
65.54.246.176
65.54.246.207
65.54.246.213

whois:
Code: 
Whois response for: 65.54.246.174  US	US
  bay0-omc2-s38.bay0.hotmail.com

OrgName:    Microsoft Corp 
OrgID:      MSFT
Address:    One Microsoft Way
City:       Redmond
StateProv:  WA
PostalCode: 98052
Country:    US

NetRange:   65.52.0.0 - 65.55.255.255 
CIDR:       65.52.0.0/14 
NetName:    MICROSOFT-1BLK
NetHandle:  NET-65-52-0-0-1
Parent:     NET-65-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1.MSFT.NET
NameServer: NS5.MSFT.NET
NameServer: NS2.MSFT.NET
NameServer: NS3.MSFT.NET
NameServer: NS4.MSFT.NET
Comment:    
RegDate:    2001-02-14
Updated:    2004-12-09

Seems pretty irresponsible to blacklist such a large provider like hotmail. Being a web-based mail client, how much spam can really be generated from it? I wonder if it is spam with forged @hotmail.com and spam cannibal is listing the forged domains MX?
 
We no longer recommend using SpamCannibal; it's not included in SpamBlocker3.

Jeff
 
Arrggghhh. I just upgraded my exim to the newest stable available at directadmin and it was 2.1.1 and included spamcannibal!!

Got a false positive within 2 days of upgrading and figured it out... I think there should be a minor update for 2.X to remove it...
 
For anyone interested in knowing, they are now blocking gmail:

2008-04-11 08:31:20 H=rn-out-0910.google.com [64.233.170.191] F=<[email protected]> rejected RCPT <[email protected]>: Email blocked by SPAMCANNIBAL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/

The previous false positive was a business email hosting service called mailtrust:

2008-04-09 15:32:27 H=smtp138.iad.emailsrvr.com [207.97.245.138] F=<[email protected]> rejected RCPT <[email protected]>: Email blocked by SPAMCANNIBAL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/

Way to go Spam Cannibal...
 
I don't like Spam Cannibal either, but blocking Gmail isn't that strange in the light of the recent Gmail CAPTCHA hack.
 
I have commented the lines in the exim.conf file.
But if I update DA they will no update the exim.conf file?

PS, sorry for my english..
 
Why for a spam message received exim sends a rejection email? Would not it be properly a filter that does not warn the spammers of the existence of the email?
Like Spamassassin?
 
Exim doesn't send a rrejection. It refuses to accept the email; the sending server notifies the sender that the email has been rejected. This is proper protocol according to relevant RFCs; mailservers are required to be responsible for all email they get; they should either deliver the email, or report it's undeliverability. Otherwise an innocent sender will never know his email is being rejected.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top