From: Jake on
I just checked my mail server external IP address at mxtoolbox site. Note: I
only have 1 static IP assign to send/receive email. Incoming mail is
routed/NATted from ext to privateIP. Similarly, there's a rule for all
outgoing mail from my Exchange internal mail server (privateIP) to the
internet.

Anyway, here's the result from http://cbl.abuseat.org/ :

This IP is infected (or NATting for a computer that is infected) with the
gheg spambot.

False "gheg" detections have been seen with M&Wise's MTA software, "UMS".
Please contact your vendor for a patch. We believe that most installations
using this software have already been patched.

False "gheg" detections have also been observed with challenge/response
messages from the "TotalBlock" challenge-response (C/R) anti-spam solution
(www.totalblock.net). Please contact your vendor for a patch.

Note: Since virtually all spam has forged From lines, C/R is a bad idea in
the first place because it bombards innocent third parties with challenges
to emails that they didn't send. The CBL does _not_ list on this basis (it
has no way of knowing the email is a challenge), but other DNSBLs do. In the
TotalBlock case, the challenge emails are implemented poorly and trigger
gheg detections.
----------------------------

My IP was listed at around 12 noon PST Friday.

Is this a guarantee that my Exchange Server 2003 or a machine in the LAN is
pumping out spam?

I don't see any proof of mail volume increase the whole day today. Exchange
SMTP log looks normal, just like any other day. My firewall doesn't show any
indication of massive SMTP outgoing connections.

There is only 1 way out for all SMTP traffic from the internal LAN to the
internet, that is, from my Exchange server, thru the firewall, out to the
whole world.

I'm thinking it's a false detection. Has anyone been mistakenly blacklisted
because of a non existent spambot?


From: Jake on
Btw, the only change I did recently (about 1-2 weeks ago) was enabling Allow
Non Delivery Reports. This is an Exchange Server 2003 SP2 with up to date
patches. I got my recipient filtering enabled years ago.

"Jake" <someone> wrote in message
news:etKtzvt$KHA.5808(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I just checked my mail server external IP address at mxtoolbox site. Note:
>I only have 1 static IP assign to send/receive email. Incoming mail is
>routed/NATted from ext to privateIP. Similarly, there's a rule for all
>outgoing mail from my Exchange internal mail server (privateIP) to the
>internet.
>
> Anyway, here's the result from http://cbl.abuseat.org/ :
>
> This IP is infected (or NATting for a computer that is infected) with the
> gheg spambot.
>
> False "gheg" detections have been seen with M&Wise's MTA software, "UMS".
> Please contact your vendor for a patch. We believe that most installations
> using this software have already been patched.
>
> False "gheg" detections have also been observed with challenge/response
> messages from the "TotalBlock" challenge-response (C/R) anti-spam solution
> (www.totalblock.net). Please contact your vendor for a patch.
>
> Note: Since virtually all spam has forged From lines, C/R is a bad idea in
> the first place because it bombards innocent third parties with challenges
> to emails that they didn't send. The CBL does _not_ list on this basis (it
> has no way of knowing the email is a challenge), but other DNSBLs do. In
> the TotalBlock case, the challenge emails are implemented poorly and
> trigger gheg detections.
> ----------------------------
>
> My IP was listed at around 12 noon PST Friday.
>
> Is this a guarantee that my Exchange Server 2003 or a machine in the LAN
> is pumping out spam?
>
> I don't see any proof of mail volume increase the whole day today.
> Exchange SMTP log looks normal, just like any other day. My firewall
> doesn't show any indication of massive SMTP outgoing connections.
>
> There is only 1 way out for all SMTP traffic from the internal LAN to the
> internet, that is, from my Exchange server, thru the firewall, out to the
> whole world.
>
> I'm thinking it's a false detection. Has anyone been mistakenly
> blacklisted because of a non existent spambot?
>