On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:11:58 -0700
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obligation to _whom_? My only obligations are to those who _pay_ me for
access to my systems/resources. If the people who *do* pay me for use of
my systems/resources don't want that cr*p, then I do 'have an
David Schwartz wrote:
Nonsense. You have tort obligations as well as contractual obligations.
Specifically, if you take custody of someone else's data, and you have no
contract with that person, you have a tort obligation not to destroy it.
The nonsense is here! I am not a lawyer,
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
Nonsense. You have tort obligations as well as contractual
obligations.
Specifically, if you take custody of someone else's data, and you have no
contract with that person, you have a tort obligation not to destroy it.
The
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:11:58 PDT, David Schwartz said:
Nonsense. You have tort obligations as well as contractual obligations.
Specifically, if you take custody of someone else's data, and you have no
contract with that person, you have a tort obligation not to destroy it.
Of course,
On Aug 14, 2006, at 12:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:11:58 PDT, David Schwartz said:
Nonsense. You have tort obligations as well as contractual
obligations.
Specifically, if you take custody of someone else's data, and you
have no
contract with that person, you
[combined responses]
You do realize that when we talk about sending data we are using
language in a very loose way, right? Data isn't actually sent. When I
send a packet of data, I still retain that data. If you lose it you
have only lost your copy of it, not mine.
The packet
The thread was originally very benefitial (for me, as
we use SORBS and provide some basic SMTP services), despite
being somewhat off-topic for NANOG... but has now evolved into
the Battle of Awful Analogies(tm). Discussions of this type
always resort to the same analogy, for that matter: cars.
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 13:29, Robert Bonomi wrote:
If you want 'reliable' delivery, you _pay_ the recieving system (and the
intermediaries) for that service. Your lack of patience with something
other people _give_ you the free use of is, quite simply, an inexcusable
display of arrogance
Last time I saw someone so strenously crying that 'thou must accept
mail' and trying so hard to justify why we should accept it was a low
life toss pot scum sucking spammer, ooops I mean direct marketer, ahh
stuf fit, both the same thing ...not implying anything here but if
the shoe fits
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 02:13, Derek J. Balling wrote:
Of course, that only applies if you're dumb enough to answer '250
OK' to
the '.' after the DATA. You 5xx that puppy anywhere before that,
and you
haven't taken custody of that data...
This is ridiculous (not your argument,
Obligation to _whom_? My only obligations are to those who _pay_ me for
access to my systems/resources. If the people who *do* pay me for use of
my systems/resources don't want that cr*p, then I do 'have an
obligation'
to _not_ deliver that traffic.
Nonsense. You have tort
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 09:11:58PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Your argument is similar to a mall that claims they can shoot people who
don't buy anything. After all, their only obligation is to those who pay
them. But of course neither you nor they can do that. By setting up a
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 9 22:00:58 2006
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: SORBS Contact
From: Allan Poindexter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:59:36 -0600
Matthew so would you consider as it is my network, that I should
Matthew not be allowed to impose
Steve Sobol wrote:
Allan Poindexter wrote:
Matthew so would you consider as it is my network, that I should
Matthew not be allowed to impose these 'draconian' methods and
Matthew perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to censor traffic to and
Matthew from my networks?
If you want to run a
You're certainly welcome to encourage others not to use blacklists. Just
understand that you have no right to complain when they decide to continue
using those blacklists.
Having said that, do understand that I don't think DNSBL's are a panacea,
nor are their operators perfect. But in
Weighing in with an opinion, as bad as blacklists *may be*, at least
they let the sender know something's up. Not in an artful way, to be
sure, but they give some notice. The sender can do _something_,
including dropping his association with the recipient b/c it's not worth
his time and
Ken Simpson wrote (on Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 09:09:33AM -0700):
Weighing in with an opinion, as bad as blacklists *may be*, at least
they let the sender know something's up. Not in an artful way, to be
sure, but they give some notice. The sender can do _something_,
including dropping his
Michael Nicks wrote:
Actually I think this thread progressed from someone getting dirty
blocks, to complaining about liberal-listing-RBLs (yes SORBS is one),
to RBLs defending themselves and their obviously broken practices. We
should not have to jump through hoops to satisfy your
Steve Sobol wrote:
Matthew Sullivan wrote:
replied off list
Something to consider before replying: is this on or off topic for
NANOG? (personally I think part of this is on topic, other parts of the
thread are definitely off topic)
It has been agreed that spam is offtopic, although
hit D now, i've been trolled.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allan Poindexter) writes:
... I have one email address that has:
...
In short it should be one of the worst hit addresses there is. All I
have to do to make it manageable is run spamassassin over it.
may the wind always be at your
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote:
william In the way you describe it any spam filter is bad any spam
william filter manufacturer should go to jail...
Manufacturer? No. It is perfectly permissible for a recipient to run
a filter over his own mail if he wishes.
An RBL is in
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
This is also why I took the time to create:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt
The reason I do not like RDNS naming scheme is because it forces
one particular policy as part of
There is one very key point to make in this,
use of *any* RBL is up to individual networks, no one makes anyone use
them, and those that do must know and accept all risks involved when
dealing with DUL's, SORBS operates a zone 'just for vernom' as well,
just like spamcop and njabl and others,
On 10 Aug 2006, at 00:06, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
[...] This is also why I took the time to create:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-
naming-schemes-00.txt
Why is this information being encoded into the regular PTR records
that already have another
I'm not picking on William here; his message was just the last I saw
in this thread which has gotten way out of hand.
I have not discussed this thread with my fellow list admin team
members either, though we can do that...
But it would make our (the list admin team's) lives easier, as well as
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:29:52PM -0500, Robert J. Hantson wrote:
So with all this talk of Blacklists... does anyone have any suggestions
that would be helpful to curb the onslaught of email, without being an
adminidictator?
Yes. First, run a quality MTA -- that *requires* an open-source
on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:11:50AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
This is also why I took the time to create:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt
The reason I do not
On 8/10/06, Steven Champeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
redundancy bigisp-foo-bar-baz.dyn.bigisp.net. Worst among those who
actually provide rDNS in SE Asia is probably tm.net.my, who name all of
their customer PTRs 'tm.net.my'. Hm. Maybe encoding the IP in the PTR
There's at least one
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:21:45AM -0400, Steven Champeon wrote:
on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:11:50AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
This is also why I took the time to create:
Matthew Sullivan wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually there can be false positive. ISP's
who put address blocks into dialup blocks
which have the qualification that the ISP is
also supposed to only do it if they *don't*
allow email from the block but the ISP's
At 15:47 + 8/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:21:45AM -0400, Steven Champeon wrote:
on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:11:50AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 23:51:58 -0400
Derek J. Balling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 9, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Allan Poindexter wrote:
At LISA a couple of years ago a Microsoftie got up at the SPAM
symposium and told of an experiment they did where they asked their
hotmail users to identify
- Original Message Follows -
From: Allan Poindexter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this is fine. If you have agreed to participate in the
Internet you have an obligation to deliver your traffic.
No you don't. They're your property. You bought them and
you can do anything you want with them.
on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 08:55:37PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 8/10/06, Steven Champeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
redundancy bigisp-foo-bar-baz.dyn.bigisp.net. Worst among those who
actually provide rDNS in SE Asia is probably tm.net.my, who name all of
their customer PTRs
On 8/10/06, Steven Champeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 08:55:37PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
There's at least one vietnamese ISP that has / had till recently set
localhost as rDNS for all their IPs.
IIRC, that was fpt.vn; they replaced 'localhost' with the
Allan Poindexter wrote:
Matthew so would you consider as it is my network, that I should
Matthew not be allowed to impose these 'draconian' methods and
Matthew perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to censor traffic to and
Matthew from my networks?
If you want to run a network off in the
Allan Poindexter wrote:
Todd There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of
Todd the moanings of the few who have been mistakenly blocked.
So it is OK so long as we only defame a few people and potentially
ruin their lives?
Weren't you the person complaining about
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
Sad state of affairs when ISPs are still taking money from spammers and
providing transit to known criminal organisations.
Hey Mat.
You aren't wrong, but that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to
de-list in an efficient manner when you
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Steve Sobol wrote:
I don't know what your problem is, but you're not making things any better
by refusing to fix listings that aren't incorrect or, in some cases, never
were.
Feh.
Listings that are NO LONGER CORRECT, or in some cases, never were.
Make sure brain is
I don't know what your problem is, but you're not making things any better
by refusing to fix listings that aren't incorrect or, in some cases, never
were.
IMHO, it's not about making things 'better' - we don't expect NANOG'ers
to be any more altruistic than other folk. It's about
broad.
You _can_ make the US based ISP not use SORBS. Most ISPs know better,
already.
--Dean
See also http://www.iadl.org.
--Dean
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Brian Boles wrote:
Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Stefan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what your problem is, but you're not making things any
better by refusing to fix listings that aren't incorrect or, in some
cases, never were.
IMHO, it's not about making things 'better' - we don't expect
NANOG'ers to be any more altruistic than other
I think we can sufficiently indict SORBS by saying that they are a poorly
managed email blacklist which isn't used by anyone with a clue, without putting
on our tinfoil hats. http://www.iadl.org makes some interesting claims, but
anyone who puts Paul Vixie in the same list of offenders with
Albert Meyer wrote:
I think we can sufficiently indict SORBS by saying that they are a
poorly managed email blacklist which isn't used by anyone with a clue,
without putting on our tinfoil hats. http://www.iadl.org makes some
interesting claims, but anyone who puts Paul Vixie in the same
Actually I think this thread progressed from someone getting dirty
blocks, to complaining about liberal-listing-RBLs (yes SORBS is one), to
RBLs defending themselves and their obviously broken practices. We
should not have to jump through hoops to satisfy your requirements.
Best Regards,
Michael Nicks wrote:
Actually I think this thread progressed from someone getting dirty
blocks, to complaining about liberal-listing-RBLs (yes SORBS is one), to
RBLs defending themselves and their obviously broken practices. We
should not have to jump through hoops to satisfy your
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Michael Nicks wrote:
themselves and their obviously broken practices. We should not have to
jump through hoops to satisfy your requirements.
We were hit by the requirement to include the word static in our DNS
names to satisfy requirements. It wasn't enough to just say
Doesn't really surprise me to be frankly honest. :) The way their
requirements are structured, they remind me a lot of a state agency.
Best Regards,
-Michael
--
Michael Nicks
Network Engineer
KanREN
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
o: +1-785-856-9800 x221
m: +1-913-378-6516
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Michael Nicks wrote:
themselves and their obviously broken practices. We should not have to jump
through hoops to satisfy your requirements.
We were hit by the requirement to include the word static in our DNS names
to
On 8/9/06, william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---
Of course the root cause for all these still remains that certain
OS vendor makes (and contines to) bad security design choices and
this results in users of their system getting infected and being
used as spam zombies. Combined with
Laurence End users ought not to have the functionality of email
Laurence destroyed because originating SP's won't show due
Laurence diligence in preventing abuse of the network.
This is crisis mongering of the worst sort. Far more damage has been
done to the functionality of email by
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 07:39, Aaron Glenn wrote:
That (blocking SMTP) could become illegal is some proposed net
neutrality legislation is passed.
hahaha try enforcing that in other countries
also, most networks are private (not state run) therefore we have the
right to say yes/no what data
Allan Poindexter wrote:
The functionality of my email is still almost completely intact. The
only time it isn't is when some antispam kook somewhere decides he
knows better than me what I want to read. Spam is manageable problem
without the self appointed censors. Get over it and move on.
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 06:49, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
We were hit by the requirement to include the word static in our DNS
names to satisfy requirements. It wasn't enough to just say this /17 is
only static IPs, one customer, one IP, no dhcp or other dynamics at all),
we actually had
On 8/9/06, Noel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 07:39, Aaron Glenn wrote:
That (blocking SMTP) could become illegal is some proposed net
neutrality legislation is passed.
Man, I really butchered that one. I look so much smarter when I don't
post on NANOG...
hahaha try
Steve Sobol wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
Sad state of affairs when ISPs are still taking money from spammers and
providing transit to known criminal organisations.
Hey Mat.
You aren't wrong, but that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to
de-list in an
Noel wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 06:49, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
We were hit by the requirement to include the word static in our DNS
names to satisfy requirements. It wasn't enough to just say this /17 is
only static IPs, one customer, one IP, no dhcp or other dynamics at all),
we
Actually there can be false positive. ISP's
who put address blocks into dialup blocks
which have the qualification that the ISP is
also supposed to only do it if they *don't*
allow email from the block but the ISP's
policy explicitly allows email
I'll post this back to NANOG as others are likely to comment similar ways...
Michael J Wise wrote:
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
This is also why I took the time to create:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt
Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually there can be false positive. ISP's
who put address blocks into dialup blocks
which have the qualification that the ISP is
also supposed to only do it if they *don't*
allow email from the block but the ISP's
policy
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 03:42:32PM -0600, Allan Poindexter wrote:
Far more damage has been done to the functionality of email by antispam
kookery than has ever been done by spammers.
That is not even good enough to be wrong.
---Rsk, with apologies to Enrico Fermi
Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually there can be false positive. ISP's
who put address blocks into dialup blocks
which have the qualification that the ISP is
also supposed to only do it if they *don't*
allow email from the block but the ISP's
policy explicitly
Allan Poindexter wrote:
The functionality of my email is still almost completely intact. The
only time it isn't is when some antispam kook somewhere decides he
knows better than me what I want to read. Spam is manageable problem
without the self appointed censors. Get over it and move on.
Mark Andrews wrote:
I wasn't thinking about SORBS. It was a general warning to
only put blocks on lists where the usage matches the policy
of the list.
Ah my apologies I misinterpreted.
I was thinking about a Australian cable provider that doesn't
Matthew so would you consider as it is my network, that I should
Matthew not be allowed to impose these 'draconian' methods and
Matthew perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to censor traffic to and
Matthew from my networks?
If you want to run a network off in the corner by yourself this is
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote:
moanings of the hand wringers. In the meantime my patience with email
lost silently due to blacklists, etc. is growing thin.
don't let some third party you have no relation to determine the 'fate' of
your email/messages? with all blacklists you
Of
Christopher L. Morrow
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 10:19 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: SORBS Contact
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote:
moanings of the hand wringers. In the meantime my patience with email
lost silently due to blacklists, etc. is growing thin.
don't let some
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Robert J. Hantson wrote:
So with all this talk of Blacklists... does anyone have any suggestions
that would be helpful to curb the onslaught of email, without being an
adminidictator?
Right now, the ONLY list we are using is that which is provided through
spamcop.
On 8/9/06, Allan Poindexter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of the
moanings of the hand wringers. In the meantime my patience with email
lost silently due to blacklists, etc. is growing thin.
There are simple solutions to this. They do
On Aug 9, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Allan Poindexter wrote:
At LISA a couple of years ago a Microsoftie got up at the SPAM
symposium and told of an experiment they did where they asked their
hotmail users to identify their mail messages as spam or not. He said
the users got it wrong some small
On Aug 9, 2006, at 8:29 PM, Robert J. Hantson wrote:
So with all this talk of Blacklists... does anyone have any
suggestions
that would be helpful to curb the onslaught of email, without being an
adminidictator?
Right now, the ONLY list we are using is that which is provided
through
Todd There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of
Todd the moanings of the few who have been mistakenly blocked.
So it is OK so long as we only defame a few people and potentially
ruin their lives?
Todd In the meantime my patience with email lost in the sea of
Todd spam
In the way you describe it any spam filter is bad any spam filter
manufacturer should go to jail...
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote:
Todd There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of
Todd the moanings of the few who have been mistakenly blocked.
So it is OK so
Derek I'm gonna hold up the I call bullshit card here. Recipients
Derek most certainly *can* get it wrong.
Sorry I wasn't very clear. The results in the hotmail example were
where the users said it wasn't spam but hotmail insisted it was. It
is possible for a user to indentify non-spam as
Allan Poindexter wrote:
Matthew so would you consider as it is my network, that I should
Matthew not be allowed to impose these 'draconian' methods and
Matthew perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to censor traffic to and
Matthew from my networks?
If you want to run a network off in the
On 8/10/06, Allan Poindexter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Todd There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of
Todd the moanings of the few who have been mistakenly blocked.
So it is OK so long as we only defame a few people and potentially
ruin their lives?
That's quite a
william In the way you describe it any spam filter is bad any spam
william filter manufacturer should go to jail...
Manufacturer? No. It is perfectly permissible for a recipient to run
a filter over his own mail if he wishes.
Jail? Not what I said. I said postal workers couldn't get
Matthew Sullivan wrote:
If you checked with the original complainant you would find that both
the zombie and DUHL listings are cleared. If you knew the ticket
numbers and where they sit in the SORBS RT Support system you would know
that there were multiple tickets logged the oldest now
Sorry I wasn't very clear. The results in the hotmail example were
where the users said it wasn't spam but hotmail insisted it was. It
is possible for a user to indentify non-spam as spam. But if a user
says it isn't spam then it isn't no matter how much it might look like
it might be.
We have the same problem. We are blacklisted and I filled out the webform. I
got an email regarding ticket number and account/password to track the
ticket. But it seems that nobody is working on it.
Best Stefan
On Monday 07 August 2006 20:54, Brian Boles wrote:
Can someone from SORBS
If you are blacklisted due of SPAM, and this happens often when you are an
ISP, there is not automatic process.
Stefan
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 11:36, Stephen Satchell wrote:
Stefan Hegger wrote:
We have the same problem. We are blacklisted and I filled out the
webform. I got an email
Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are good and
bad.
-Michael
Brian Boles wrote:
Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here
My most recent allocation from ARIN turned out to be dirty IP's, and I'm
having trouble getting them removed following
Even worse if your ISP uses it and demands you ask the 'offender' to get
'themselves' removed.
Michael Nicks wroteth on 8/8/2006 7:27 AM:
Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are good and
bad.
-Michael
Brian Boles wrote:
Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist
the 'offender' to get
'themselves' removed.
Michael Nicks wroteth on 8/8/2006 7:27 AM:
Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are good and
bad.
-Michael
Brian Boles wrote:
Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here
My most recent allocation from
Michael Nicks wrote:
Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are good
and bad.
Sad state of affairs when ISPs are still taking money from spammers and
providing transit to known criminal organisations.
/ Mat
Someone is providing you transit.. what gives? :)
Matthew Sullivan wroteth on 8/8/2006 4:33 PM:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Michael Nicks wrote:
Sad state of affairs when looney people dictate which IPs are good
Brian Boles wrote:
Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here
My most recent allocation from ARIN turned out to be dirty IP's, and
I'm having trouble getting them removed following the steps on their
website (no action on tickets opened).
64.79.128.0/20 http
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
Brian Boles wrote:
Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here
My most recent allocation from ARIN turned out to be dirty IP's, and I'm
having trouble getting them removed following the steps on their website
(no action
william(at)elan.net wrote:
That was old user of that ip block. The block has been deleted
and ARIN now reassigned/reallocated it to somebody else.
The file you need to watch (which gets updated when ip block
previously hijacked is no longer an issue) is:
Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on hereMy most recent allocation from ARIN turned out to be dirty IP's, and I'm having trouble getting them removed following the steps on their website (no action on tickets opened).
64.79.128.0/20Brian Boles[EMAIL PROTECTED]
90 matches
Mail list logo
