On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 08:31:36 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Just wondering: what do you guys pay per minute when roaming on GSM
networks abroad? For me it's around 1 euro ($1 excluding sales tax) to
call within the country itself or back home and about half that for
receiving calls in most
On 02 Sep 2004 22:29:27 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
Now that ATT has followed T-Mobile's example by screwing the pooch on my
cell phone billing, and I've flung yet another SIM-locked Motorola V600
out the window of yet another moving vehicle, and am about to enter into
another year long you violated
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:24:19 -0700, Michel Py wrote:
None of the
other crapware removers I have tried could clean the machine either.
Try Bazooka spyware detector from http://www.kephyr.com/. This
detected for me a bunch of malware neither Spybot nor Adaware caught.
Jeffrey Race
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:22:09 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
With the fix above, the problem becomes hey, *some* of the nameservers
for ORG are dead! We should fix that, but since not *all* of them are
dead, at least ORG still works.
Sorry, I missed the top of this thread. I cannot mail an ORG
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:27:32 +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
It is the same way credit reporting works: you mess up, you get no credit.
Except then you can generate yet another fake credit card and go
on with your life. Do that a few thousand times a day, even -- no problem.
The
. These are the facts. Lots of
companies have procedures like this in place which is why they don't have
spam problems.
Jeffrey Race
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:34:25 + (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:05:41 + (GMT), Christopher L
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:20:30 -0400, Stephen Perciballi wrote:
I think you may be missing a major point. UUNET/MCI provides dedicated internet
services to so many downstreams that it is impossible to stop spammers from
signing up to those downstreams. Preventing spammers from signing up for
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:16:49 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect that the spammer can find a lawyer who is willing to argue the idea
that the safety and security of the AS701 backbone was not prejudiced by
the spammer's actions,
OK, let them sue. If you are against spam, you have to
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:33:35 + (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
This is true. The 'security' or 'safety' of the backbone is not affected
by:
1) portscaning by morons for openshares
2) spam mail sending
3) spam mail recieving
(atleast not to my view, though I'm no lawyer, just a chemical
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:26:10 -0600, Smith, Donald wrote:
Are you offering to finance ISP's legal battles against spammers?
No, it's their network and their legal responsibility to keep it clean. However
I did voluntarily prepare a case for Neil Patel to file on behalf of UUNET
under the Va
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:39:26 -0600, Smith, Donald wrote:
I am not a lawyer. I am not aware of the law that requires uunet to
go to court to prevent spammers who are not their direct customers from using
their network.
Doctrine of attractive nuisance
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:05:41 + (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Sure, customer of a customer we got emailtools.com kicked from their
original 'home' now they've moved off (probably several times since 2000)
to another customer. This happens to every ISP, each time they appear we
start the
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:09:05 -0700, Ben Browning wrote:
At this point I am just curious what the answers to these questions are. I
have not (yet) widely blocklisted uunet, but if things don't change I fear
such a measure may be the only way to stop the abuse spewing from your
networks. Seeing
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:28:07 + (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Did you includeany logs or other relevant data about the problems you are
reporting?
These problems are systemic and internet-wide. I can likely drudge up a
great many examples if someone from UUNet can assure me they
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:21:02 -0500 (CDT), Adi Linden wrote:
Since many gateway service providers will not prevent insufficiently
skilled users from connecting to the internet and injuring others, the
only remaining solution, as far as I can see, is cutting connectivity
with those enablers.
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:12:16 -0400, Chris Brenton wrote:
An uneducated
end user is not something you can fix with a service pack.
A profound point, again highlighting the fact that there
are no technical solutions to this problem. (Though
technical measures to enhance traceability are a big
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:07:45 -1000 (HST), Scott Weeks wrote:
Think globally. Even though this forum has NA as its heading, we need to
think globally when suggesting solutions. You'll never get any sort of
licensing globally nor will you EVER get end users (globally) educated
enough to stop
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:53:45 -1000 (HST), Scott Weeks wrote:
Neither can happen. That's just another way of saying make
all your users
skilled or go out of business.
The SPs whose business model entails externalizing the
costs SHOULD go out of business
On 18 Apr 2004 06:13:35 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
The new motto here is: Blackhole 'em all and let market
forces sort 'em out.
Hooray.
May Comcast rot in hell. They are completely irresponsible.
Don't even send an auto-ignore message.
Jeffrey Race
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 14:01:45 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time), Jerry Eyers wrote:
Spamming is pervasive mainly due to the inattention or failure to enforce
acceptable use policies by the service provider.
I must point out that this statement is just flat wrong.
It's flat right. See
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:09:39 + (UTC), Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
You, sure, how about the people who are not really computer literate and
use SMTP AUTH to send their mail from various places? Remember that
convinience almost always outweighs security with the general
population. If it
In the last few days I have had two spams with injection
point 127.0.0.1. This definitely needs to be addressed
by ATT. Anyone online from ATT like to say something?
Jeffrey Race
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:17:08 -0400 (EDT), William R. Lorenz
wrote:
So, with ATT being a network provider at
Pls see interleaved comments:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:25:45 -0500, Callahan, Richard M, GVSOL wrote:
I do work for ATT and I do have a vested interest in SPAM and other ISP related
issues.
Good so far
Some of you may recall I was the naive idiot that allowed ATT to launch
the Do Not Call
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:38:54 -0500, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
It looks like you as an attglobal.net customer might have received it from
another attglobal.net user
Yes this is what I suspected
(or else there was other header forgery going on -
it looks like you didn't provide
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:54:00 -, Peter Galbavy wrote:
Wonder what other countries have sold their souls to Satan ?
Are any leases on offer? :)
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 04:57:03 -0500 (EST), Sean Donelan wrote:
NANOG has less than 500 attendees,
yet has about the same number as infected computers as any other
ad-hoc network population.
If true this is a very significant fact
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:55:09 -0700 (MST), guy wrote:
I can think of one university who requires students to login through a web
portal before giving them a routable address. This is such a waste of
time for both parties.
Translation:
It is too much trouble for us to keep the kids from
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:17:47 -0800, Stephen Milton wrote:
dropload.com seems to me to be the perfect model for anonymous file
delivery over the internet.
I have also bookmarked, but have never used:
http://www.sharemation.com/xythoswfs/webui?action=loginsubaction=newuser
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:41:34 -0500, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
wrote:
Yup. This is the form I saw in the PRC,
It's come to Thailand too: NIPA. Results in lots of puzzling
hits, or you end up at Google if NIPA can't find anything. You
also get this if there is a transient DNS
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:06:05 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any real solution is going to have to deal with the fact that properly
administered systems are in the distinct minority.
You shut the mal-administered systems of from the internet until they
are no lnger a threat to the internet,
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:43:39 -0600 (CST), Adi Linden wrote:
I am looking for ideas to stop the spam created by compromised Windows
PC's. This is not about the various worms and viruses replicating but
these boxes acting as open relays or open proxies.
There are valid reasons not to run
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:58:18 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
To attack spam, we need to attack it at its core, not at some secondary or
tertiary side-effect, with a mechanism that also hurt legitimate users.
So, what, exactly, _is_ that core?
Unless and until there is broad community consensus
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:03:29 + (GMT), E.B. Dreger wrote:
Most of our users are reasonable, however. With a little
explanation about the harm an insecure computer can cause, they
understand and accept the fact that they're not islands.
Of course, many still get infected with spyware and
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:43:39 -0600 (CST), Adi Linden wrote:
I am looking for ideas to stop the spam created by compromised Windows
PC's. This is not about the various worms and viruses replicating but
these boxes acting as open relays or open proxies.
There are valid reasons not to run
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:48:46 -0600, Borger, Ben wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good network monitor that can replay captured
packets? Windows or *nix. Free is great, commercial is ok too.
TCP/IP connection logger
Windows and Linux (GNU freeware)
www.ethereal.com
Windows
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 06:22:08 -0500 (EST), Sean Donelan wrote:
http://kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewerid=6232cat=HOME
No explaination why Sante Fe officials had not patched the city's
computers in the three months since Microsoft announced the vulnerability
and released the software
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:05:50 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:07:30 -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
It can be built without choke points. ISPs could form trust
relationships with each other and bypass the central mail
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:25:36 -0500 (EST), Sean Donelan wrote:
Again, look the postal mail system. One proposal required everyone mail
letters in person at the post office, and show id to the postal clerk.
The problem is it really doesn't solve the problem. Third-party trust
systems don't scale
On 13 Oct 2003 20:15:22 +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at asianet.co.th.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have mail for you
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:55:36 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trouble is, how do you stop this?
You use the same principles that are successfully applied every in society
(except the Internet) to prevent the negligent from injuring the public.
http://www.camblab.com/misc/univ_std.txt
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:36:53 -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
OrgName:CyberGate, Inc.
This is a notorious spam-enabler about which I had a quarrel
with ATT management several years back to get them thrown off
the ATT network. I had to take it to their lawyers since the
abuse staff would do
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:28:30 -0700 (PDT), Andy Ellifson wrote:
And as soon as you call law enforcement what happends? The spammer is
located offshore. Then what?
This is an easy one. Again, see http://www.camblab.oom/misc/univ_std.txt
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:40:35 -0400, John Capo wrote:
I spent
the rest of the day googleing for case law that might be applied
to the network operators providing connectivity to the trojaned
boxes being used for illegal activities, identity theft. Didn't
accomplish much except wasting the day.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:08:27 -0400, Jeffrey Meltzer wrote:
What valid reason would you have for getting in contact with a domain owner,
if they've unlisted themselves and don't want to be contacted?
Netblock info, yes, because that's where the abuse comes from. Domains are
forged a lot more
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:29:42 +0100, Steve Linford wrote:
for the benefit of those providers on nanag who use our SBL system,
rest assured we will be removing the escalation 'any minute now' as
WCG are now in contact with us and I understand are pulling spammer
plugs.
Elegant understatement
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:32:55 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
Question: Why is it not illegal for an ISP to allow a known vulnerable
host to stay connected and not even bother contacting the owner? There
are civil remedies that can be sought but no criminal.
Various theories of criminal liability
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:01:48 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Blocking wcg's corporate mail servers is not the solution.
It is the ONLY solution that works, as shown many times including
the case just posted to this list about Sprint.
Sure, it may get
someone's attention at wcg, but it may also
Interesting diversion from quotidian banalities
http://www.fdnylodd.com/BloodofHeroes.html
Jeffrey Race
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:24:29 -0400, Matt Larson wrote:
10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildcard record in the .com zone is
being added now. We have prepared a white paper describing VeriSign's
wildcard implementation, which is available here:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:24:35 -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
I also tried asking for an Alarm Circuit. I even explained to them what it
was, but they still didn't understand. All of the people I talked to
wondered why in the world I would want a pair with no dialtone.
This is what happens when you
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:13:31 -0500, John Palmer wrote:
I connect with my laptop from 3 or 4 locations to drop off mail to
my servers. I cannot use their mail servers from other locations other
than when I am connected to them. I have about 2 dozen e-mail
accounts defined in outlook express and
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:07:30 -0400, Matthew Crocker wrote:
It can be built without choke points. ISPs could form trust
relationships with each other and bypass the central mail relay. AOL
for example could require ISPs to meet certain criteria before they are
allowed direct connections.
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:13:27 -0400, Todd Mitchell - lists wrote:
See the following message sent out by X-Force a few hours ago.Todd
Computers infected with the Sobig.F worm are programmed
to automatically download an executable of unknown function
from a hard-coded list of servers at 19:00 UTC
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:13:35 +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
We're asking everybody to turn off HTML when they post to mailing lists.
Here's some boilerplate I wrote for this purpose:
http://www.camblab.com/nugget/turnoff.txt
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:58:50 -0500, Vivien M. wrote:
I wonder if perhaps a solution would be doing something I saw a gentleman
from China, IIRC, do on this list quite a while ago. He had added (Mr.)
to
his .sig to make it easy for people to figure out his gender. Perhaps
this
would be an
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:14:07 -0800, chuck goolsbee wrote:
Forgive the intrusion...
Forgiven
We have a customer who uses some merchant services off of
208.196.93.204, which seems to be unreachable via any location I try.
Emails to UUnet's NOC are unaswered and the guy I talked to on the
phone @
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:19:38 -0500, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
If you read PPML, there is a HUGE push via Owen DeLong's Policy
2003-1a to help with some aspects of the whois Contact..
his policy is mainly based on the abuse contact, But I think may
get extended to all contacts eventually...
Owen-
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:11:31 -0500, Cutler, James R wrote:
Implies that a simple j'accuse is enough to create a denial of service.
I
prefer the US to Napoleonic codes, where an accusation is insufficient to
prove guilt.
Please read the details in the text. It is all spelt out there.
Jeffrey
Interested parties are invited to provide comments to correct, elaborate
or perfect my proposal, abstracted below, which I plan to offer as an
Internet Draft momentarily. It relates to the activities of ISPs
and backbones intimately.
Comments or objections to the effect This is going to be
Thank you Andy for making my points so clearly. See inline
comments
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:30:11 -0500 (EST), Andy Dills wrote:
Some comments, after reading the draft:
Under 2.1, Form of Practice, where you finally talk about what it is
you're propsing:
The withdrawal of IR (use of blocklists,
Thank you Josh, please see inline comments which let me clarify points
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:17:35 -0500, Joshua Smith wrote:
is there a forthcoming section on criterium for demonstrating reformation
by the sp and/or 'offending' user?
The criterion is stated: no more complaints
the
61 matches
Mail list logo
