Alex,
We also ran into a problem with the guys from news.admin.net-abuse.email.
I think that they are a bunch of cklueless people trying to do anti-spam
by personal vendettas. one of the guys actually told me that MAPS was a
dead issue ever since they 'allowed' a company to spam because they
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, joe mcguckin wrote:
We're seriously considering moving out of 1 Wilshire, due to Carlyle's
factor of eight fee increase for meet-me room cage rents and their practice
of insisting on charging us for items our contract specifically says we
can't be charged for.
One
Martin Hannigan said:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, joe mcguckin wrote:
We're seriously considering moving out of 1 Wilshire, due to Carlyle's
factor of eight fee increase for meet-me room cage rents and their
practice of insisting on charging us for items our contract
specifically says we can't
I fail to see how blacklisting neighboring subnets (not associated with
the organization in question) instead of just the offending one is in
order.
Let me clarify, then.
If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues
available to you to get the ISP to get
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:12:20PM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues
available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming -
whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever - then escalation
may
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Clayton Fiske wrote:
Fair enough. I agree with the idea in spirit. However, care must be
taken to define acceptable criteria.
Oh, absolutely. Escalation is not something that should be taken lightly.
e.g. for MAPS, escalation was (is?) only used as a last resort.
I
I do this and it only holds limited data before rolling over so it works
fine providing you sample regular and dont have -too- many macs
--
Stephen J. Wilcox
IP Services Manager, Opal Telecom
http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/
Tel: 0161 222 2000
Fax: 0161 222 2008
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Daniska
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, joe mcguckin wrote:
We're seriously considering moving out of 1 Wilshire, due to Carlyle's
factor of eight fee increase for meet-me room cage rents and their practice
of insisting on charging us for items our contract specifically says we
can't be
Andy Johnson wrote:
Let me clarify, then.
If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues
available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming -
whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever -
... and you've waited a reasonable time
Steven J. Sobol wrote (on Jun 20):
If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues
available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming -
whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever - then escalation
may work if the collateral damage
It seems to me that this issue is being highly obfuscated. SPEWS
publishes a list. It is the ISP of your MAIL RECIPIENT that CHOOSES
to use it. Take up the issue with them. It was their choice to use
it - no one forced them to. I recently pointed out to the sendmail
folks that their blacklist
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:33:18 EDT, Sandy Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues
available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming -
whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever -
... and
I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but the fact of the matter
is, if SPEWS behavior is abusive towards a network, that network does
have a limited recourse: null-route SPEWS. Thus, the more providers
they anger, the less network they can reach. Some users may complain,
but if SPEWS is
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Chrisy Luke wrote:
Can't find the terrorists you're looking for so start killing bystanders
until someone submits? Sounds militia to me.
And your suggested alternatives are...?
The service providers are not the enemies.
You'll never convince me of that fact as a
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Chrisy Luke wrote:
David Lesher wrote (on Jun 20):
The service providers are not the enemies. If you treat them like enemies
then enemies they will become.
That's right; no service provider will ever harbor spammers just
to make a quick buck. It's never happened,
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:41:45 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But there is intermediate altenative - create organization with all isps
as its members (kind of like ARIN/APNIC/RIPE for mail service providers)
and have all downstream corporate customers be required to either also be
member of
I'v had similar problems as Alex with SPEW and also got the same reaction.
They have serious attitude problem. And no, SBC is not using SPEW, I
think they have their own blacklist based on actual incidents and I think
they are smart enough not to put themselve under legal risks for using
On 06/20/02, Sabri Berisha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
I've had a little run-in with SPEWS, and the crowd on
news:news.admin.net-abuse.email.
I'm curious; do folks take these guys serious?
Any non-contactable blacklist should not be taken
But there is intermediate altenative - create organization with all isps
as its members (kind of like ARIN/APNIC/RIPE for mail service providers)
and have all downstream corporate customers be required to either also be
member of this organization or relay email through its isp. Do
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:25:05 EDT, Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
actually, i think Valdis was alluding to the Paetec fiasco with Monsterhut.
Correct.
msg02845/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Dan Hollis wrote:
Its my box, my hardware, my property. No one has an inherent right
to force speech on an unwilling recipient.
If you're installing a blacklist on a mail server you keep at home for
yourself, then yes.
If you're running an ISP with thousands of customers, then you also
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:48:48PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Regis M. Donovan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 02:35:16PM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
*Spamming* or launching a DoS attack in response to spam is definitely
abusive.
and black-holing innocent
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Regis M. Donovan wrote:
vain hopes of getting a response from some difficult-to-contact ISP
s/difficult-to-contact/blackhat or rogue/
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Looks like all those nasty words 'terrorism' 'militia' 'killing' and of
course 'blacklist' have tripped someones content alarm ;)
im waiting for someone to trip godwins law
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Hi
Is there a way for an ISP to determine the ingress router interface at
its network border that will carry IP traffic _from_ an IP address not
owned by it?
I don't want to assume the path is the same in both directions, and tools
such as CAIDA's skitter plot paths from specific sources.
if grandma is hosted on chinanet she is already blackholed by most western
civilization anyway
no, just by some self-marginalizing jingoists who don't know how to filter
Dan Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, David Charlap wrote:
Blackholing grandma because a spammer uses the same ISP isn't
going to be an easy thing to get your customers to accept.
if grandma is hosted on chinanet she is already blackholed by most
western civilization anyway
Who said
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 05:42:23PM -0400, Rajesh Talpade wrote:
Is there a way for an ISP to determine the ingress router interface at
its network border that will carry IP traffic _from_ an IP address not
owned by it?
I don't want to assume the path is the same in both directions, and
--- begin message from Dylan Greene ---
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 05:42:23PM -0400, Rajesh Talpade wrote:
Is there a way for an ISP to determine the ingress router interface at
its network border that will carry IP traffic _from_ an IP address not
owned by it?
I don't want to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, David Charlap wrote:
if grandma is hosted on chinanet she is already blackholed by most
western civilization anyway
Who said anything about chinanet? You're the only one who keeps on
harping back to them.
Well if you want to talk about western networks, qwest ranks
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 06:06:51PM -0400, Rajesh Talpade wrote:
the interface that should be passing the traffic.
Rajesh,
Hmm.. Short of trusting that you're only going to receive traffic on a given
ingress interface from a source you're learning from it (uRPF, sorta), I'm
unsure how you
In the immortal words of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Its used primarily by very small sstem operators and I don't
know any isp of any serious size (i.e. over 1000 users or domains) that is
using them
Sprintlink, mail.com/iname/outblaze, and I believe possibly PacBell
all use
indeed, altho you will have to go back to filters if you want to do this
on an IP more than a couple of hops away, I tend to find most of my peers
allow it a little way into their network and it either stops or it stops
at the next network boundary..
Steve
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Randy Bush
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 04:38:02PM -0400, Geo. wrote:
I am a postmaster for a state wide ISP and we maintain our own blacklist
along with usage of one other public blacklist, the spamcop blacklist.
Why spamcop and not spews?
My question is why a dnsbl that the *maintainer* of which says
When you're dealing with what some people refer to as tier 1 providers
(I'll just say really big networks), this can be counter-productive. From
what I've seen the following providers have been notoriously unresponsive
to spam complaints (apologies if any of this is dated):
UUnet (Worldcom)
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Andy Johnson wrote:
I fail to see how blacklisting neighboring subnets (not associated with
the organization in question) instead of just the offending one is in
order.
Let me clarify, then.
If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Chrisy Luke wrote:
David Lesher wrote (on Jun 20):
The service providers are not the enemies. If you treat them like enemies
then enemies they will become.
That's right; no service provider will ever harbor spammers
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Richard Welty wrote:
Then the ISP shouldn't be punished just because they wrote a bad
contract.
actually, i think Valdis was alluding to the Paetec fiasco with Monsterhut.
in that particular case, the contract was ok, but Monsterhut lied to the
court about the
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Regis M. Donovan wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 02:35:16PM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
*Spamming* or launching a DoS attack in response to spam is definitely
abusive.
and black-holing innocent bystander networks not a
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When you're dealing with what some people refer to as tier 1 providers
(I'll just say really big networks), this can be counter-productive. From
what I've seen the following providers have been notoriously unresponsive
to spam complaints
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is actually a guy trying to clean up Chinanet now. @Home was my
A guy. Singular. I'm not going to hold my breath, unless he has the
authority to deploy military forces. ;)
From what I hear, he's having some effect. Perhaps not much...
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:39:58 -0400 (EDT) Steven J. Sobol [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Although Paetec is now being implicated in some TCPA violations over on
the junkfax mailing list, so I'm no longer convinced they're whitehat.
i never claimed they were white hat. i have some direct
As a person who actively works an abuse department...
We need to remember that while lots of folks will scream like banshees at the
reciept of a single email, very few (none that I know of personally) will
help a place *stay* white hat by voting with their wallets to support the
killing of
Why spamcop and not spews?
My question is why a dnsbl that the *maintainer* of which says should not
be used for production mail systems?
Because it's a targetted dynamic solution for a dynamic problem and I
believe it has a chance at working?
That was kinda my point. We need to stop this
That's 611 6th st., aka ATT Center. PAIX-LA is in that building.
Note that when MFN's financial picture changed, the opening date for
PAIX-LA was indefinitely postponed. I'll second Woody's remarks
about LA Telehouse -- a fine place run by fine people. There're also
Equinix and SD facilities
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well if you want to talk about western networks, qwest ranks second just
behind chinanet in terms of black hat and spam.
s/qwest/verio/g
As someone who has recently had the pleasure of dealing with some of their
pink sheet clientele...
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Richard Welty wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:39:58 -0400 (EDT) Steven J. Sobol [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Although Paetec is now being implicated in some TCPA violations over on
the junkfax mailing list, so I'm no longer convinced they're whitehat.
i never claimed
On 06/20/02, Geo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That was kinda my point. We need to stop this pushing and shoving back and
forth and find solutions that work and don't depend on bending every ISP on
the planet to conformity because that's never going to happen. The forcing
approach reminds me
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Steven J. Sobol
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 8:45 PM
To: Dan Hollis
Cc: Regis M. Donovan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SPEWS?
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, J.D. Falk wrote:
But spamcop's in specific is still based on spamcop user
complaints, and most of the spamcop user complaints I've seen
have been grossly mistargetted.
How? I find spamcop to be very reliable, and the basis of many actions.
--
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Benjamin P. Grubin wrote:
But credit reports *are* legislated, whether you want them to be or not.
Regulated, yes. That really has no bearing on the fact that companies can
choose to use or not use credit reports in determining whether to do
business with, extend credit
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, J.D. Falk wrote:
But spamcop's in specific is still based on spamcop user
complaints, and most of the spamcop user complaints I've seen
have been grossly mistargetted.
How? I find spamcop to be very
Steven,
You are saying that the right to defend property trumps the right to
free expression. In principle, that is a very agreeable thing to say.
But you are using that argument to defend blacklisters with questionable
operational skills.
My guess would be that when someone inappropriately
I am a 99% lurker, but I didn't assume you were beating around the bush.
It *seems* to me that in response to complaints about how several
blacklists were run you said that because blacklists are subscription
services, and everyone has a choice whether or not to use them, that the
[ On Thursday, June 20, 2002 at 17:01:20 (-0400), David Charlap wrote: ]
Subject: Re: SPEWS?
Dan Hollis wrote:
Its my box, my hardware, my property. No one has an inherent right
to force speech on an unwilling recipient.
If you're installing a blacklist on a mail server you keep at
55 matches
Mail list logo
