OMICS ordered to pay fine of $50M
Leave a reply
Author Archives: RocketScientist
Scientific Spam 5 years
During 2018, we saw a modest 15% growth on the list query rates from 2017 on the IP list. The domain name list more than doubled its queries from 1.5B to over 3 billion over the same period.
As of writing this, there are nearly 8,000 IP listings, of which 2600 are for /24’s and the rest for single IPs. Nearly 4,900 domain names are listed.
Thank you to all who are querying this data. You are the difference between this being just a random blog on the internets and an actual useful resource.
Predatory publishers are The Borg
This just in on the removals email address:
Received: from [183.83.159.88] (port=46330 helo=HEIGHPUBS)
by sg3plcpnl0082.prod.sin3.secureserver.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.91)
(envelope-from [email protected])
In other news, Peertechz are using IP ranges to send their mail that had already been listed on our list as belonging exclusively to OMICS. In addition, they have named their box HEIGHPUBS, which is a hallmark of “Heighten Science”.
We rest our case.
Remove Boxtrapper and all other Challenge/Response spam-o-matons
See https://scientificspam.net/?p=329
This is something we have discussed before…
If we listed you because of the backscatter, and you write in to ask for it to be removed, and we receive a C/R so that our reply would be delivered to you…
That’s just wrong.
We won’t click on it. You won’t receive our reply, and the conversation will never proceed, and you will not be delisted. But that’s OK – the support conversation we just attempted to have with you actually proved the validity of our listing once again.
Challenge/response is spam. Stop it.
Incoming email trouble
Apologies to all whose email has either been eaten silently or explicitly rejected. It took us a moment to notice that our service provider had ceased to provide email forwarding services as of October 1 and to re-establish forwarding through another means. We’re back on track. If you sent any email after October 1 and haven’t had a response, please resend.
Spam is That Which We Don’t Do
In a support conversation with a listee today:
Let me explain it. We are a publisher and we need to send many emails to the authors to invite them to publish articles in our journals. So the emails we sent are not spam at all. Thanks.
Vernon Schryver’s excellent list of spammer excuses is that way. Thank you for playing.
In addition, the Rules of Spam are always pertinent.
Federal Trade Commission v. OMICS Group Inc., a Nevada corporation, also doing business as OMICS Publishing Group, iMEDPub LLC, a Delaware corporation, Conference Series LLC, a Delaware corporation, and Srinubabu Gedela
CARTOONEY: Velianet, a subsidiary of Go Daddy Software
Velia, on the topic of ScienceDomain International and a few escalation listings, today, after having received a list of 151 Received: lines containing HELO, reverse DNS at the time, and IP that have been sending ScienceDomain Int’l Ltd spam:
Let me get this straight:
You are blacklisting thousands of our customers because of one customer who is „around our network“?
You refuse to de-list obviously innocent customers because we are unable to determine this ominous person?
You refuse to give out the necessary information (time stamp) to solve the case?Is this correct?
If so, we will forward the issue to our legal department.
Saved for posterity forever on the internets. Go Daddy Software, we’re waiting to hear from your lawyers.
Happy Birthday, Scientific Spam
During 2017, the average daily figures were 5.5M for the IP BL (almost double compared to 2016) and 4M for the domain one (about +50%). There was a major dip on the domain side between September to November, but in December things were already back to normal.
Thank you, as always, to everybody contributing data and to anyone using it.
Don’t be an idiot, don’t lie to us
Owner of listed network to us: “Remove the listing, the network was only assigned to us many months after the listing was created!”
ScientificSpam: *look at WHOIS*… and find that the network was assigned to the requestor two years before the listing was created. In addition, the network assignment even has a name that indicates it having been assigned to the requestor six years before the listing was created, being CC-XXXXX-YYYYMMDD, where CC is the country code, XXXXX is the operator’s name, and there’s a number sequence that looks too much like an YYYY-MM-DD date stamp not to be one.
If you’re hoping to have networks delisted, better invent better reasons than “it wasn’t us” when the facts are trivial to check. Besides, it’s really great to lose your reputation with us this way. We won’t believe you even if you told us water is wet now 😀