XMPP Service Operators - 2019-12-01

MattJ, ralphm Don't work s2s 404.city <=> muc.xmpp.org Is there any information about this?

2019-12-01 04:33:56.045 [info] <0.26888.7>@ejabberd_s2s_in:process_closed:131 Closing inbound s2s connection muc.xmpp.org -> 404.city: Stream closed by local host: Idle connection (connection-timeout)

atom: 404 forces some odd tls choices on s2s, maybe https://github.com/E-404/Manifestos/blob/master/1.md

Licaon_Kter, A few days ago the connection worked. This is not like a certificate error.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

2019-12-01 02:54:58.853 [info] <0.26888.7>@ejabberd_s2s_in:handle_auth_success:181 (tls|<0.26888.7>) Accepted inbound s2s EXTERNAL authentication muc.xmpp.org -> 404.city (::ffff:208.68.163.210) 2019-12-01 04:33:56.045 [info] <0.26888.7>@ejabberd_s2s_in:process_closed:131 Closing inbound s2s connection muc.xmpp.org -> 404.city: Stream closed by local host: Idle connection (connection-timeout

spam from quickcoin@linuxlovers.at quickcoin@linuxlovers.at quick_coin19@jabber.sk jabservice@jabbim.com jabservise@xmpp.jp

atom, the 404 closed stream is not an issue, once a new message comes itwill be connected again

For some reason it dings me whenever you say atom

In psi-plus

"a_tom" "a tom" "ah tom"

lol

Oh

I guess psi-plus needs it's regex adjusted to account for words

atom: report the spammers as per these instructions https://github.com/JabberSPAM/blacklist

Ge0rG, I propose to add to the spam manifest the wording on blocking the accomplices of spam mailings. The true sources of spam are not servers sending out spam, but servers providing feedback to spammers. Example jabbim.com jabb.im etc

atom: feedback?

Licaon_Kter, jabservice@jabbim.com

spammer

What does "feedback" mean?

It is necessary to block the funding of spammers.

Licaon_Kter, contact for order spam mailing

So when joespammer@spamm.im sends a spam message text "Buy cheap bitcoins and c1alis from atom@notspamme.rs" we should ban you too, right?

Licaon_Kter, Let's follow the logic. If an account atom@notspamme.rs sells spam, then it agrees to sell spam.

atom: > The true sources of spam are not servers sending out spam, but servers providing feedback to spammers. Example jabbim.com jabb.im etc We should fight both. Report the spam to the sending server and jabbim as well.

atom: hot do you know whether a given account sells spam?

Ge0rG, jabservice@jabbim.com yes. the account and all server jabbim.com sell spam

atom: do you have evidence?

Ge0rG, Let's come up with an even more telling name. sellspamjabberservice@jabbim.com Is your manifest designed to fight spam?

atom: but where is the line? How do you ensure that you don't become a tool in some spammer's hands?

Ge0rG, Write an account jabservice@jabbim.com from a fake account and buy spam mailing. What are you fooling around. I don’t want to talk to you anymore.

atom: did you write them? Do you have a log that you want to publish? Do I consider you trustworthy enough not to fake logs?

Ge0rG, I gave you instructions on how to check this spammer or not. You don't want to check my evidence.

atom: I'm not responsible for jabbim. I reported the issue to them and they don't want to do anything about it

Ge0rG, Why is your anti-spam manifest necessary if it does not block spammers? Your manifest blocks spammers victims.

atom: it blocks abandoned servers

> Your manifest blocks spammers victims. >it blocks abandoned servers yep, yep, yep

atom: so I need to change the manifesto in a transparent way regarding sellers accounts.

Ge0rG, I think it is necessary to improve the manifesto by including sanctions against the organizers of spam mailings and servers of accomplices. There is no other method of combating spam in the blocking context. If we want to block spam, we need to block spam funding. This is a classic practice used to block spam e-mail.

atom: and we need a transparent approach to remain credible

atom, my experience with email spam blocking is that the senders are blocked, not the orchestrators

or rather, what people *think* are the senders

speaking from experience of being caught in the crossfire of a /48 (!) IPv6 ban ✏