Check out my site?

User avatar
AfroChild113
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:25 pm

Check out my site?

Post by AfroChild113 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:25 pm

[green]Hello, everyone,[/green] I just wanted to know if you guys could rate my site--it's a site I use to update on my remixes and it's here:
http://www.051495-source.fanfusion.org/

Thanks so much everyone!

God bless.
--Medi

User avatar
QuickMan
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:41 pm

Your

Post by QuickMan » Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:47 am

site is a subdomain of fanfusion.org which is dangerous.

User avatar
c۞g
Posts: 10927
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

dangerous

Post by c۞g » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:23 pm

what is "dangerous" about it?

User avatar
c۞g
Posts: 10927
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

fanfusion.org

Post by c۞g » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:39 pm

fanfusion.org has been lageled as spam with a very vague comment.
checking mxToolBox.com fanfusion.org MX points to IP: 72.52.209.52 with 2 results.
the first is SORBS - link which reporst a domain: kristenjstewart.com NOT fanfusion.com (shared IP).
the second points to: SWINOG - link - though referenced, the IP is NOT blocked.

It's unfortunate that a WOT Platinum member is mass-rating domains located on shared IPs giving the same ratings that only 1 or 2 of the domains may have earned...

fanfusion.org is NOT a spam domain as per mxToolBox.com and also per RBL via Robtex.com (not listed in any blacklists).

Excluding references for WOT, fanfusion.org is reported "clean" at urlVoid.com

fanfusion.org is a safe site: no spam, no malware, no phishing
It doesn't deserve a low rating from being placed on a shared IP...

-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W

User avatar
Nulander
Posts: 1146
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:09 am

---

Post by Nulander » Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:03 pm

The comment has been updated and posted even on the forum, to reflect the situation going on.

SORBS BL report the server IP, used even as a Mail-Server, for Spamming. In their website they have updated the "Spam" entry on Mon Jun 21 22:15:31 2010 GMT

ONE of the evidences of the spamming activity going on is reported on the website:

Additional Info: Received: from www.kristenjstewart.com (host.fanfusion.org [72.52.209.52]) by catapilla.sorbs.net (Postfix) with SMTP id C36E72E08B for <[email]>; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:15:27 +1000 (EST)

The fact that they have obtained only 1 sample of the spam message not prove that the Mail-Server is abused by even other subdomains.

The results of SWINOG are out of date respect SORBS: Last spam time 2010 Mar 14th 22:40 CET, when SORBS report it as Mon Jun 21 22:15:31 2010 GMT

The inclusion of the IP 72.52.209.52 is due to its direct involvement with the A Record of the domain-name.

> It's unfortunate that a WOT Platinum member is mass-rating domains located on shared IPs giving the same ratings that only 1
> or 2 of the domains may have earned...

No, is unfortunate that a Top-Member deliberately ignore the results of an updated BL just to carry on his ideas as if the only one trustworthy, and erroneously display other members as idiots unable to understand and know how the Internet work or being too plain on their consideration when they place comments and ratings (o maybe just to punish others for pure pleasure, when it is really not).

The comment:
No SPAM
No Malware
No Phishing

safe site.
re:
http://www.mywot.com/forum/6807-check-o ... 0#comment-...
------- WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust. WOT Community - gives us security through unity. Thank you all - G7W
Is simply misleading considering the fact that a Spamming problem is going on and FanFusion.org, maintainer of all the entire web-hosting service, is responsable of the activity done by users on their sub-domains, especially if this involve spam (that is legally persecutable).

I have personally explain the user that the next steps he has to accomplish are to inform FanFusion Abuse-Desk in order to start an investigation about who can be held responsable for the clear abuse going on, ToS him/her away and ask SORBS to remove the Spam Entry bringing them proof of their resolution action taken against the abusive user.

-----
MF IT-UESC - Protecting your Digital Experience. Now.

Guest

I hate to be a martinet, but

Post by Guest » Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:53 pm

I hate to be a martinet here, but let's remember the forum guidelines:
"Be respectful of others"

[cite]No, is unfortunate that a Top-Member deliberately ignore the results of an updated BL just to carry on his ideas as if the only one trustworthy, and erroneously display other members as idiots unable to understand and know how the Internet work or being too plain on their consideration when they place comments and ratings (o maybe just to punish others for pure pleasure, when it is really not).[/cite]

Although I cannot speak for him, I doubt that was his intention.


Clean air. Fresh Water. Open space. Pollution is not the Solution.
Nature recycles everything. So should people.

User avatar
Nulander
Posts: 1146
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:09 am

---

Post by Nulander » Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:57 pm

I have already read the forum guidelines (that are mainly related to common sense). The problem comes to the light when someone abuse of his reputation and deliberately upset the analysis going on, without trying to discuss and even understand why some considerations has been made instead of others. This is a form of MOBBING, because attempt to cause a backfire discredit not with some clear evidences of deficiency on conducing fair checks and controls, and even trying to hide a simple fact: everyone is prone to mistakes. But seems that g7w it is not, only others. I have already treated the problem of the Spam evidence in another thread, showing clearly how domain-names listed inside the spam messages not always are included on BLs, and what could potentially happend if some addresses do not get listed or even prompted for behavior monitoring about spamming. I have stated even how the inclusion or not inclusion could be controversial, especially when a concurrent or a troll "spam" websites just to force their adding to the blacklists. The only conclusion that I have decided so far, even after this another attempt to make me pass as a mad man that go around placing bad ratings in foolish way, is to report parts of the spam-evidence directly to the comment placed on the site. So everyone next time will see why it has been rated like that.

I HAVE always been open-minded, polite and calm and ready to discuss about EVERYTHING, re-viewing my ratings etc. I have never deny to do that if there wasn't some serious reasons (like the proof of a problem going on), and only when I was facing a serious endless Internet-Abuse I have stated that, for security and ethical reasons I wasn't going to remove my judgements.

The other case of spamming, about the dude that whine a little bit, got a full green from g7w and my incapacity of bringing the evidences of the case going on, only resulted in someone, that we either don't know what part he had in all the facts, who placed 1 complain and nothing more. No other words or attempt to defend itself. He just complained cut and copying some parts of a generic message placed on my wall, just to pass as a sacrificial lamb (and just this should raise some suspects; why behave like that if he was sure that the message was not real, as he stated?) have found g7w, that have caught a lot of bad guys out there and everyone take him in consideration, kept the mouth sealed-close (maybe he could have lurked the other threads on the forum and find out that "talking" too much only pull attentions) and the inability of the proof of the facts just done the rest.

About the Spam-harvesting done by BLs, this greatly change considering the ways the spam-run is done (like when is too much noisy, as happend for the cases where the addresses inserted on the spam-lists are generated by scratch, and when it only exploit addresses already known, gathered with other methods, like forum/websites hacking, data-selling done by unfair online service keepers etc.), that greatly influence the capability of spam-traps to catch them. A more specified spam-run will create less noise on the mailboxes, reducing the opportunity to hit a "trap", for example. But I must consider that even this case involve the spreading of UCE/UBE/SPAM. Another consideration that must be take is about how the "blacklisting services" harvest spam over the net. Disguised addresses used to catch mails? Eye witnesses reporting?


PS: About the rules, in the first days a user of the forum clearly said to me to shut up because I was, listening his ideas, annoying. In that case I was only trying to underline the need of placing ratings and comments in a "fair" way, without letting the topics treated by them be an obstacle for this practice. In that case (and in this one) I always kept polite, without feeding the troll responsable for the derogatory comment done against to me. And I tell you this just for your information (if the eyes didn't catch something or the mind didn't remember it).

--
MF IT-UESC - Protecting your Digital Experience. Now.

Guest

everyone is prone to

Post by Guest » Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:43 pm

[cite]everyone is prone to mistakes. But seems that g7w it is not, only others[/cite]

g7w has admitted to mistakes:
http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/6810-cana ... ment-36761
"It was my mistake from viewing the spam pages and adding the domain without loading the domain on it's own - which I usually do :/"


[cite]About the rules, .... And I tell you this just for your information (if the eyes didn't catch something or the mind didn't remember it).[/cite]

I hope my previous post didn't imply that I think you aren't "open-minded, polite and calm" etc, I just thought the topic was drifting from the site's ratings to insulting other members - I don't want to take any sides, I just wanted to point out the fact that we could all benefit from pausing and taking a breath.

[cite]even after this another attempt to make me pass as a mad man that go around placing bad ratings in foolish way[/cite]

Once again, I can't speak for g7w, but I'm pretty sure that he did not mean his post in that way. I think he thought that you made a mistake, (which you obviously disagree with) because, as you say, "everyone is prone to mistakes".


Clean air. Fresh Water. Open space. Pollution is not the Solution.
Nature recycles everything. So should people.

User avatar
c۞g
Posts: 10927
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

spam BL

Post by c۞g » Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:51 pm

http://www.dnsbltools.com/fanfusion.org/

notice the 1 red reference which points to the previously mentioned:
http://www.sorbs.net/lookup.shtml?72.52.209.52

enter the code, reveal the offender and you get: kristenjstewart.com
1 incident back in 27 Feb 2010

this is 1 domain on a shared IP along with:
(I only checked a few random sites, but it looks as if you've rated all accusing them to be spammers when they're not)

a-simpson.net
alainawhitaker.org
alessia-ventura.org
annasophiarobb.net
aubrey-oday.net
avenue-fan.org
belindafans.com.br
canon-love.co.uk - scorecard | dnsBLtools <= not a spam domain
carrie-underwood.net
carrieimages.com
cheyenne-kimball.com
cheyennekimball.org
chris-brown.net
chrisjericho.info
davidarchuleta.net
evangeline-lilly.org
evanna-lynch.org
faith-images.us
gagasource.net
ginnifer-goodwin.net
halfheart.org
host.fanfusion.org
hq-starz.info
iheartemma.net
iheartselena.us
ilovegemmaward.com
insidesounds.net
j-padalecki.org
james-franco.org
jamesfranco.net
jamesfranco.org
jamie-spears.com
janet-love.com
jonasbrothers.cl
joshholloway.org
justin-long.net
justin-long.org
kate-bosworth.net
katelyn-t.com
kelly-blatz.net
kim-basinger.org
kristenjstewart.com <= 1 spam incident (hardly enough for a WOT spam comment and rating...
ladygaga.org
lara-iekeliene.org
leighton-meester.us
lily-cole.org - scorecard | dnsBLtools <= not a spam domain
maitemvp.com
marcuscc.info
marylouise-parker.org
maxthieriot.net
mileytalk.com
miss-aniston.org
natasha-richardson.org
oh-shialabeouf.com
ohmyjoe.org
paurubio.net
pure-vowels.com - scorecard | dnsBLtools <= not a spam domain
rainonme.net
rmcadams.com
rob-pattinson.com
ryan-sheckler.org
scarlett-johansson.com
selena-gomez.net
selenagomez.net
shane-west.net
shiabrasil.com
so-bonnie.net
stampd-designs.com
stephanie-mcmahon.net
stephaniemarchfan.com
taylorthompson.org
thecadelas.com
thisisflex.com
tisdalephotos.com
ultimatehilary.org
virginia-madsen.org


This is not the first thread where you've mass-rated domains sitting on shared servers from an incident recorded from 1 domain.

FYI, 72.52.209.52 is Liquid Web, Inc.

You need to be careful when using the mass-rating tool and not to degrade the reputation of innocent domains.

without feeding the troll responsable for the derogatory comment done against to me

1 I am not a troll - your apology for that remark is expected.
2 I've made no derogatory comments about you - just displayed facts - you did incorrectly rate these domains based upon the lack of proper evidence.

User avatar
Nulander
Posts: 1146
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:09 am

---

Post by Nulander » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:33 am

And, to avoid anymore doubts, all my SPAM comments will be provided with part of the headers and body of the messages where I have found the informations about. Hope this would solve the issues once for all, especially because continuing in this way is only doing the interests of spammers: letting them go.

Even if the case of spamming is 1 (thing that for me, it is not in this case), is still an abuse and the owners of the service must be informed. Then, for common sense, people finish to simply drop the message in order to not waste time for only a little case of Spam, but for FanFusion.org, there's more than an BL that have obtained spam-samples, so the spam-runs going on are not so few, even if them could not be considered plaguing as the most famous spammers.

It is still an activity that must be stopped because unfair, or someone will come here and whine saying: "Dudes, the domain-name with 1 spam message is passed, I have been caught with 2 spam messages, can you close an eye even for me?" and then go on until even who send tons of spam will escape. No way for me. I have had to cope with abuses of a lot of kinds when I was an IRC-Admin, and I can tell you that being too much permissive is only a problem as who is DDoSing or trying to infect others.

-----
MF IT-UESC - Protecting your Digital Experience. Now.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest