[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Curran) writes:
...
This would suggest that spam is pervasive largely because of the large
number of insecure systems available for origination (via port 25 :-),
not because of providers failing to close barn doors after the fact...
I don't know why it's taken me so
since this space has no dns records pointing into it, the only
traffic it will see is from errors/typo's, and network scanners.
And blowback from other people forging your addresses as sources.
Actually, not. Very few modern MTA's correctly implement @[dot.ted.qu.ad]
parsing, and other
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
MAPS or SORBS or somebody needs to set up a BBL (broad band list) which is
just a list of broadband customer netblocks, with no moral/value judgement
expressed or implied. If it's complete and updated frequently, I'd pay for
a feed because of all the
On 18-apr-04, at 4:48, Paul Jakma wrote:
Oh oh I see another one taking the path that leads to the dark side.
Michel, you forgot to include the audio:
http://www.bgpexpert.com/darkside.mp3
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)?
Let me count the
So-called broadband user populations (cable, dsl, fixed wireless, mobile
wireless) are full time connected, or nearly so. They are technically
unsophisticated, on average. The platforms they run trade convenience for
security, and must do so in order to remain competitive/relevant. Margin
Paul Vixie wrote:
So-called broadband user populations (cable, dsl, fixed wireless, mobile
wireless) are full time connected, or nearly so. They are technically
unsophisticated, on average. The platforms they run trade convenience for
security, and must do so in order to remain
--On 18 April 2004 03:48 +0100 Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)?
As an IPv6 skeptic I would note that some protocols NAT extremely badly
(SIP for instance), and the bodges to fix it are costly. So if IPv6
--On 18 April 2004 02:56 -0400 Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you don't want to accept connections from indeterminate or
unauthenticated addresses, its your choice.
Whilst that may gave you some heuristic help, I'm not sure
about the language. HINFO used that way neither
At 10:32 AM +0200 4/18/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
And customers who do ask, are routinely turned down.
Change providers. A request for new functionality from existing
customers may not always get the attention it deserves, but I don't
know of a provider that doesn't sit up and pay
Paul Jakma wrote:
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)? And, to be more on-topic, name one good reason
why a network operator would want it? Especially given that, apart
from the traditional bleeding edges (academic networks), no customers
are asking
I suggested using something like HINFO in the in-addr.arpa address
zones for service providers to give similar information about IP
addresses. Yes, I know, using DNS for yet something else. LDAP or
RWHOIS or any other global mechanism could be used.
more uses for dns is actually a good
... Margin pressure makes it impossible for most broadband service
providers to even catalogue known-defect customer systems or process
complaints about them.
What is the estimated cost per subscriber of such an operation in your
opinion and where should it be to make it feasible?
On Apr 18, 2004, at 4:32 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18-apr-04, at 4:48, Paul Jakma wrote:
Well, let's be honest, name one good reason why you'd want IPv6
(given you have 4)?
Let me count the ways... At home it's great because of the extra
address space. I have a /29 at home, which is
Maybe a stupid question... But if broadband providers aren't going to do
this, and considering there are way less legitimate SMTP senders than
broadband users, wouldn't it make more sense to whitelist known real SMTP
sources rather than blacklist all addresses that potentially have a fake
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Let me count the ways... At home it's great because of the extra
address space. I have a /29 at home, which is pretty luxurious
compared to what most people have, but not nearly enough to give
all my boxes a real address if I turn them all on
On 18-apr-04, at 12:16, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
[...]
Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse to
migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in v4.
Sure. But I do find myself saying if we were doing IPv6 right now we
wouldn't have this problem
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.
Spamming exists because spamming works. Why do spammers send
out millions of emails? Because thousands of
Cost transference. The cost of Spam via postal mail is borne by the
sender.
When sent via email, the cost is shouldered by the recipient.
It is not perfect comparation. For both, e-mail and post-mail, recipient
pays the same cost for sorting mail , mail box etc. But, for e-mail, sender
pays
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0400, 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.
Spamming exists because spamming works. Why
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
Renumbering is much easier.
I like this one.
Now this is a funny one about IPv6.
How is renumbering *any* easier than IPv4? Yes you have autoconf
based on route advertisements/solicits on the client end from the
routers, but how is that any different than IPv4+DHCP?
Is it perhaps b/c IPv6
[consolidated some posts]
Alex Bligh wrote:
As an IPv6 skeptic I would note that some protocols NAT
extremely badly (SIP for instance), and the bodges to fix
it are costly. So if IPv6 means I can avoid NAT, that can
actually save $$$.
Likely the market will find some other way, which is
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
I suggested using something like HINFO in the in-addr.arpa address
zones for service providers to give similar information about IP
addresses. Yes, I know, using DNS for yet something else. LDAP or
RWHOIS or any other global mechanism could be used.
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Sure. But I do find myself saying if we were doing IPv6 right now
we wouldn't have this problem more and more.
Which problem is that? ;)
(and if it involves NAT... sorry, no.)
See http://countipv6.bgpexpert.com/. The different numbers under
this gibberish...
Spamming is pervasive mainly due to the inattention or failure to enforc=
e=0D
acceptable use policies by the service provider. =0D
=0D
...is unreadable, and so is...
DIVgt;Spamming is pervasive mainly due to the inattention or failure t=
o enforce/DIV
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote:
- Tomorrow, IPv4 will get the small upgrades that are needed.
Like what? 128bit ip addresses so we don't run out 10 years from now?
Or ability to do QoS PtP over internet? Or security that is built in and
not part of additional layer?
Perhaps ipv6 has
william(at)elan.net wrote:
Like what? 128bit ip addresses so we don't run out 10 years from now?
Maybe. Given the current stockpiling plus the extension of IPv4 to 32
bits to 48 bits (32 bits+port) that shortage that we have heard for the
last 10 years would happen any time soon might not even
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Alex Bligh wrote:
Whilst that may gave you some heuristic help, I'm not sure
about the language. HINFO used that way neither /authenticates/
the address (in any meaningful manner as the reverse DNS holder
can put in whatever they like), nor does it /authenticate/ the
Be careful about the slice and dice effect. Depending on how you divide
up the numbers you can make any thing come out on top. In some sense
the problem is a lot worse. Its not just spam, worms, viruses. Its not
just residential broadband users. Its not even just Microsoft Windows.
Lou Katz wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0400, 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.
Spamming exists
:
:
:
: Lou Katz wrote:
:
: On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0400, 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.
:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Doug White wrote:
Well, Paul did advance a methodology - blackhole them all grin
If Paul came up with a practical way to fix millions of compromised
computers which didn't involve hiring entire second-world countries
to talk grandma through the process, I think many people
:
: That's why I keep advocating better ways to identify the specific sources
: of the unwanted traffic, even if they change IP addresses. That way you
: could positively block the infected computers from not only mail but
: anything else you don't want to supply (no more GOOGLE/YAHOO/CNN for
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Doug White wrote:
I likewise would like to see a better way - but changing the whole internet is
completely illogical.
Educating the masses is the same.
As soon as I see a solution that will work, I will probably try to implement it
on my system.
Abbot and Costello do
I haven't seen it mentioned yet but I believe that some may be looking
for something like the lists at: http://www.blackholes.us/ and if it has
been mentioned already I apologize for the duplicate.
Doug White wrote:
:
:
:
: Lou Katz wrote:
:
: On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0400,
Sean Donelan
Should ISPs start requiring their users to install Windows XP SP2?
Most of those of us that work with m$ products on a daily basis are not
too hot about installing beta code in production. A week after m$
releases it, and after carefully listening to the volume of screams
coming
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 23:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should ISPs start requiring their users to install Windows XP SP2?
IMHO:
Not if they want to stay in business. Our customer base is probably
80%Win 9x users. I can't speak for everybody else, but I would be
late-night-humor
I was amused at this and decided to look real quick.. OpenBSD's pf can
block on OS fingerprints.. effectively doing exactly what you are
kidding about (at least I'd hope so.. well, maybe) even in the man page
example they put:
# Do not allow Windows 9x SMTP connections since
Yes I was being mostly facetious. But as others pointed out-
Micro$not is as much to blame for the spam problem as Road Runner and
CommieCast with their extremely shoddy software. Open proxies, worms,
relays, spyware ad nauseum.
late-night-humor
I was amused at this and decided to look real
On Apr 18, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18-apr-04, at 12:16, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse
to migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in
v4.
Sure. But I do find myself saying if we were
On Apr 18, 2004, at 11:40 PM, Matt Hess wrote:
late-night-humor
I was amused at this and decided to look real quick.. OpenBSD's pf can
block on OS fingerprints.. effectively doing exactly what you are
kidding about (at least I'd hope so.. well, maybe) even in the man
page example they put:
#
[forwarded on behalf of the organisers]
---
SANOG IV
23-30 July, 2004
Kathmandu, Nepal
SANOG IV Program and Registration Announcement
South Asian Network Operators Group (SANOG) IV program and agenda are
now published on http://www.sanog.org/sanog4/. The registration has
also now been opened.
Thanks, Joe.
A couple of extra points -
Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Exim Mail Server
This tutorial is by Philip Hazel, the author of the exim mailserver.
- APCAUCE tutorials and meeting
Agenda being finalized - please watch http://www.apcauce.org for
details.
srs
Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
The point still stands - without real multi-homing
so I do not have to be dependent upon a single
vendor, IPv6 is simply not an option.
Quick Meta-Question: Why was was this even
considered when v6 was being engineered?
Yes, although the magnitude of the problem
I think something like this would be best (safest?) used on collection
mx hosts.. hosts that clients would not connect with to send mail.. just
other servers delivering mail inward.. I personally can't imagine why
someone would want to use a win95/98/Me system as a mta.. so this
probably would
Brandon Shiers wrote:
Let's face it -- this shouldn't have to be the ISP's problem.
Microsoft needs to quit rushing out new OS releases without properly
straining them and stress testing to find as many holes as they can.
They need to start cracking down on themselves and really start
47 matches
Mail list logo
