| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
efa
Lieutenant
Joined: Aug 31, 2007
Posts: 166
Location: Italy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tembow
Blue Angel
Premium Member
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Posts: 2943
|
 Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: VERSION 21.4 |
|
|
Please obtain the latest download - version 21.4 - from the official site
http://www.complainterator.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pwillener
SRT Trainee
Premium Member
Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 1838
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you very much! 
The newest complainterator.contacts.txt file still misses a few contacts that I have in mine (and I believe I have submitted these either by email or by posting here earlier).
| Quote: | 21Company,Inc. ~ e-info[@]21-domain.com
35 TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD ~ lwloo[@]35.com liveperson[@]35.cn
ACTIVE REGISTRAR, INC. ~ whois[@]activeregistrar.com
CRONON AG BERLIN, NIEDERLASSUNG REGENSBURG ~ harry[@]abc.ro
Directi Internet Solutions d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.Com ~ abuse[@]publicdomainregistry.com
DIRECTI INTERNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. DBA PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM ~ abuse[@]publicdomainregistry.com
DOTARAI CO,. LTD. ~ info[@]dotarai.co.th
Dotregistrar, LLC (R114-LROR) ~ abuse[@]dotregistrar.com
Dotster, Inc. (R34-LROR) ~ abuse[@]dotregistrar.com
DSTR Acquisition PA I, LLC dba DomainBank.com (R28-LROR) ~ support[@]registerapi.com
DSTR ACQUISITION PA I, LLC DBA DOMAINBANK.COM ~ support[@]registerapi.com
eNom, Inc. [Tag = ENOM] ~ legal[@]enom.com,legal[@]name-services.com,Report.Abuse[@]enom.com
GKG.NET,Inc. (R260-LRMS) ~ abuse[@]gkg.net
GMO Internet Inc. (R110-LRMS) ~ support[@]discount-domain.com
MYDOMAIN, INC. ~ support[@]registerapi.com
Name.com LLC (R279-LRMS) ~ support[@]name.com
NameScout Corp (R148-LRMS) ~ legal[@]namescout.com
NAMESECURE.COM, INC. ~ support[@]namesecure.com
REGISTRATOR-REG-RIPN ~ abuse[@]masterhost.ru info[@]mastername.ru
REGRU-REG-RIPN ~ info[@]reg.ru
Todaynic.com, Inc. (R1316-LROR) ~ abuse[@]now.net.cn,sanry[@]now.net.cn,info[@]todaynic.com
Xin Net Technology Corporation (R118-LROR) ~ abuse[@]xinnet.com,support[@]xinnet.com spam[@]ccert.edu.cn
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamaraju
Corporal
Joined: Mar 07, 2007
Posts: 66
Location: USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlphaCentauri
SIRT Handler
Premium Member
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 2895
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was able to download a copy at home this morning, but a couple hours later at work, I can't get the site at all.
| Quote: | Pinging complainterator.com [217.70.190.197] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out. |
ADD: I was able to get a copy from the spamtrackers.eu downloads area. It looks like the most current one:
http://spamtrackers.eu/downloads/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tembow
Blue Angel
Premium Member
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Posts: 2943
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: MAY 16 - more complete contacts file |
|
|
| pwillener wrote: | Thank you very much!
The newest complainterator.contacts.txt file still misses a few contacts that I have in mine (and I believe I have submitted these either by email or by posting here earlier). |
I apologize, and I wonder where those emails went.
The updated contacts list can be downloaded to replace the incomplete one from the spamtrackers.eu
http://www.spamtrackers.eu/downloads/Complainterator/complainterator.contacts.txt
Also attached here as a ZIP file.
[EDIT - duplicates removed]
| Description: |
| Fresh contacts file as at May 17 |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
complainterator.contacts.zip |
| Filesize: |
7.34 KB |
| Downloaded: |
31 Time(s) |
Last edited by tembow on Sun May 18, 2008 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
efa
Lieutenant
Joined: Aug 31, 2007
Posts: 166
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I passed this updated contact file to 'sort'.
Seems it have the first 63 lines duplicated with a trailing space before NewLine. To me seems identical but the space.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pwillener
SRT Trainee
Premium Member
Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 1838
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, it appears that the lines from "$PPC MARKETING LLC " to "DOMAIN.KG " (except the new ones like "21Company,Inc", "35 TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD", "ACTIVE REGISTRAR, INC.", "CRONON AG BERLIN") somehow got duplicated. But that shouldn't stop Complainterator from working correctly.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tembow
Blue Angel
Premium Member
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Posts: 2943
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Corrected version replaces the previous one, thanks for pointing that out.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tembow
Blue Angel
Premium Member
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Posts: 2943
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Version 21.6 is available.
It has just been noticed that both Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology and Xin Net have recently successfully suspended some name servers. They have both elected to uses dummy IP addresses of 4.4.4.1, 4.4.4.2, 4.4.4.3 etc
Domain Name: BUGS33.COM
Registrar: BEIJING INNOVATIVE LINKAGE TECHNOLOGY LTD. DBA DNS.COM.CN
ns1.bugs33.com has address 4.4.4.1
ns2.bugs33.com has address 4.4.4.2
Domain Name: NODNS2.COM
Registrar: XIN NET TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
ns1.nodns2.com has address 4.4.4.1
ns2.nodns2.com has address 4.4.4.2
ns3.nodns2.com has address 4.4.4.3
Version 21.6 will detect these IPs, and will not generate unnecessary requests to remove any such name servers.[/b]
Last edited by tembow on Thu May 22, 2008 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
efa
Lieutenant
Joined: Aug 31, 2007
Posts: 166
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Complainterator Version 21.6 MAY 22, 2008 |
|
|
| tembow wrote: |
New in version 21.0 was an in-built table of the top 100 registrar's name server domain names. Previous versions would generate a request to the registrar to remove their own name servers, and users were required to detect these and not send them.
|
how to recover the complete list of registrar nameservers ?
I need this to add this usefull function to xComplaint for Linux.
thanks
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tembow
Blue Angel
Premium Member
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Posts: 2943
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sent to you via PM
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pwillener
SRT Trainee
Premium Member
Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 1838
Location: Japan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Krivoi
Sergeant
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Posts: 90
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ahoier
SIRT Handler
Joined: Jan 14, 2006
Posts: 1118
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Krivoi wrote: | | I've been a bit quiet on here recently, but my group are merrily Complainterating away. |
Silent...but deadly lol I know how it is ;)
| Quote: | | Is the 4.4.4.* format significant? [As a name server novice, I looked on the internet & can't find much; I was wondering if it's given as a standard in some training course or set-up manual etc...] |
Good point indeed...I just whois'ed these, and came up with the following:
4.4.4.1 = [ wbar1.sjo1-4-4-004-001.sjo1.dsl-verizon.net ] belonging to Level 3 Communications Inc. and GTE.net LLC the down-stream provider (I think that is the terminology...Level 3 Communications would be the "upstream"?)
4.4.4.2 doesn't yield a rDNS (according to samspade) but the sole provider is Level 3 Comm. Same circumstance with 4.4.4.3...
| Quote: | | Why are they using this format rather than those recommended in the multitudinous Complainterator emails and the corresponding easily found internet sites? |
Who knows...but as far as I understand, this "should" stick, as long as this 4.4.4.1-4.4.4.3 doesn't get compromised with malware, capable of serving as a hijacked nameserver or webserver.
| Quote: | | How come these apparently unconnected registrars have simultaneously elected to use the same format? |
again, no idea ;) Though, they are both Chinese registrars...so perhaps they have been ordered by some China law/ruling to route to these IP addresses?
But yea, really odd that they would be pointing to a block that is clearly "in use" (in this case, by Level 3 Communications) - rather than say, an un-used/owned-by-ICANN block such as 10.*...or even 192.* (which would route "locally").
Or even, why not 0.* or 127.0.0.*? :P
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
is my nemesis being responsible for nearly 100% of the spam at most of my customers' sites!
