Arrogant RBL list maintainers

From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis (no email)
Date: Wed Dec 09 2009 - 10:18:47 EST

  • Next message: Scott Howard: "AT&T blocking individual IP addresses"

    Hi NANOG readers,

    We've noticed that Trend Micro "" just "assumes" ips are
    dynamic by default, adds them to their stupid list, and then expects US to
    update -their- database -for them- for free to get them off their stupid
    list again. (as ofcourse our customers bug us when their email doesn't
    arrive on the other side, hell they even tell the customers to bug -us- ;)

    because they just assume that working, rfc compliant, reverse dns that
    just-so-happens to be automatically generated would indicate dynamic ip
    space.. (or actually because they think using customer-pressure is a good
    way to get isps to maintain their product (their database) for them for

    we've basically told them to go to hell and we advise everyone who uses
    their RBL lists to remove their RBLs from their configs, as what we have
    here is a mismanaged list.

    as ofcourse we neither intend to change our perfectly fine
    "" reverse dns scheme, nor maintain their
    database for free for them..

    they've probably done the same with other isps that use simular schemes.

    just to let everyone know...

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:07:50 GMT
    From: Adelaide Santos via RT <>
    Subject: [MAPS #322153] Re: WWW remove for 84.22.XX.XX


    Thank you for this information. The DUL list is simply a listing of IP blocks which use dynamic IP
    assignment, and are prohibited (usually by AUP/TOS) from running servers. Many ISP's voluntarily
    participate in the DUL by providing us with their blocks of dynamically-assigned IP's. ISPs benefit
    from participating in the DUL because the amount of spam and abusive IP traffic originating from
    their IP space is reduced, which also reduces the amount of abuse complaints received. We benefit
    because of increased communications and cooperation with the ISPs makes our lists that much
    more accurate. Everyone benefits because the DUL helps stop spam.

    See also "Addition due to ISP Participation":

    Currently, you are using a generic naming convention that does not show any indication of being
    static. If this space is indeed static, then all rDNS must reference to static in the rDNS.

    Here is an example of a generic naming convention:
    84.22.XX.0 (
    84.22.XX.1 (

    Here is what you can do:
    84.22.XX.0 (
    84.22.XX.1 (
    84.22.XX.2 (
    84.22.XX.3 (
    84.22.XX.4 (

    Here are the naming conventions that we uses to decide if an IP or CIDRs is static or dynamic.

    Typical static rDNS terms:
    bus, biz, colo, ded, fix, mta, perm, server, smtp, static, wsip.

     Typical dynamic rDNS terms:
    adsl, cable, dhcp, dialup, dsl, dyn, home, isdn, modem, pool, ppp, or res.

    Trend Micro supports the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG) Best Practices for
    Dynamic Address Sharing. Please review the Best Practices document (available at

    We need to see these changes before we can proceed with the removal. If changing the rDNS is not
    possible, we suggest that you add a statement in the WHOIS information stating that this space is
    statically assigned.

    Thank you,
    Adelaide Santos
    DUL Investigator
    Trend Micro Email Reputation Services

    [ - 2009-12-08 13:23:03 +0000]:

    > hi "dul".
    > none of our ips are "dynamic", as we simply don't do access networks,
    > as those are lame and don't make money.
    > this includes:
    > all of which originate from AS34109 and none of which are "dynamic"
    > furthermore, i really don't see why -we- should spend time and effort on a
    > problem thats initiated on -your- end by your action of
    > 1: incorrectly adding our ips to your list, thereby obviously causing
    > problems for our customers
    > 2: getting our customers to get us to bug you about it instead of just
    > solving it with our customers directly, and therefore not forcing
    > us to wasting our time with it.
    > we generally do not interfere in 'third party' problems, and this clearly
    > qualifies as one (together with dmca crap, arrogant irc networks, etc) you
    > name it, we don't go and sit in the middle, just solve it with the
    > customers!).
    > as the problem is as follows: you put ips on some list therefore our
    > customer cannot mail, exactly WHY should we spend manhours (and therefore
    > money) to fix a problem YOU created...
    > as i'm damn sure we never put any of our ips on some "dynamic pool" list.
    > it's probably just your software thinking "oh automatically generated
    > reverse dns" (which in our case takes the form of
    > as it's RFC complient and we cannot be fucked to
    > make up host names for each and every one of our many 10000 of ips in our
    > many isp companies worldwide, and doesn't imply "dynamic" lameness AT ALL.
    > thats just your software being all buggy and shit.
    > (why oh why does half the world expect isps to solve things for them for
    > free... when they are not even our customer.. ;)

    Sven Olaf Kamphuis
    CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG DataServices
    Phone: +31/87-8747479
    Skype: CB3ROB
    Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
    email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
    and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
    individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
    copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

  • Next message: Scott Howard: "AT&T blocking individual IP addresses"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD