Yep. I understand that. Which is why I asked if anyone from Facebook or Spamcop was lurking around. Since Facebook knows they have an issue, how about hearing from someone over there at Facebook regarding this issue? Like it or not, Facebook is a very popular service. Regardless whether they use it for good or bad purposes, it is what it is, and both innocent and not-so-innocent people use it. That in itself makes this a huge dilemma that I hope someone from Facebook would be lurking here might address. As others have said in this thread, Facebook only sends e-mail you specifically approve.. I'm just saying something before my customers call me to complain about it... and I know they will. -S Reed Loden wrote:

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:14:37 -0800 Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com> wrote:

...

Anyone from Facebook or Spamcop lurking around to look into this? It's quite annoying.. I can't imagine how many other users are scratching their heads on this one...

I'm a long-time SpamCop member, so I forwarded your mail to the deputies. They are aware that facebook's servers have been sporadically listed, and one of them specifically said the following:

"Not much we can do about the listings. They're sending spam to our traps in large enough numbers that raises the score to a listing level. If Facebook were to follow best practices the spam complaints and trap hits would drop to levels that keeps them from getting listed."

~reed

On 2/26/10 9:56 AM, Bob Poortinga wrote:

Shon Elliott <shon@unwiredbb.com> writes:

...

Feb 25 19:08:18 postfix/smtpd[12682]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from outmail011.snc1.tfbnw.net[69.63.178.170]: 554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; host [69.63.178.170] blocked using bl.spamcop.net; Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?69.63.178.170;

Using the Spamcop BL *solely* as the basis for rejecting mail is a sure way to lose wanted email. From Spamcop's website:

"... SpamCop encourages use of the SCBL in concert with an actively maintained whitelist of wanted email senders. SpamCop encourages SCBL users to tag and divert email, rather than block it outright."

"The SCBL is aggressive and often errs on the side of blocking mail... Many mailservers operate with blacklists in a "tag only" mode, which is preferable in many situations."

IMO, the best use of the SCBL is as a scoring metric with Spam Assassin. Additional discussion should be directed to SPAM-L.

In the early days of spamcop I'd agree with you unconditionally, but over the years they've become much better to the point where I'd argue it's suitable for blocking. In the case of Facebook it certainly is; if they're is feeding spamtraps with enough volume to merit a listing then it is wholeheartedly deserved. ~Seth

There's more to it than just that Facebook themselves occasionally fit the profile of a spammer, and so some of the more stringent networks may filter mail from them. Facebook is a major source of drive-by malware, and some of the apps on Facebook tread close to the spyware/adware/parasite line and so other security tools/IP reputation services, depending on how they implement the blocks for the droppers, and other undesirables, may actually filter all traffic to/from the FB servers, as opposed to the dropper redirect or app/adware host. Regardless, for some subset of the world, reachability to various social networking sites is becoming less reliable.

-----Original Message----- From: Rich Kulawiec [mailto:rsk@gsp.org] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:15 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Spamcop Blocks Facebook?

[ This discussion really should be on spam-l, not nanog. ]

I'm not affiliated with Spamcop, however, it's well-known among those of us who work in this area that (a) Facebook has been spamming for quite some time and (b) they're not the only "social network" that's doing so. So it's not especially surprising that one or more DNSBLs/RHSBLs is/are listing them: they've earned it.

Point of order, however: Spamcop blocks nothing. Mail system administrators who choose to use their resources may block or score or tag or ignore at their discretion.

---Rsk