> Then get yourself a personal colo (http://www.vix.com/personalcolo/) A
> dynamic ip is no place for a server of any kind.
right! to use the internet as an end host/customer i have to
go get colo, transit there, ... cool!
randy
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
Then get yourself a personal colo (http://www.vix.com/personalcolo/) A
dynamic ip is no place for a server of any kind.
And it IS the isp's concern. Most of them would consider running a mail
server on a home-user grade cable connection to be in violat
>
> > Next you'll block SIP if we start getting "spam calls"? Or any other
> > application that pops up and is used by the same people sending spam
today?
>
> There is the issue of usability. Why does a Cable user on a dynamic
> range need SMTP open?
Because I am running my own SMTP server @ Free
someone who wished to remain publically unnamed answered me by saying:
> I got chastized a little while ago, too, for a single post, and told that
> it was my THIRD warning (having not received any at all before). Feh.
i can't think of anyone among all nanog posters since the beginning of time
w
In the future, I'd be careful about posting this list to nanog, rather
than privately to their respective security and abuse desks.
I realize your intentions were good, but it's been pointed out before
that this mailing list is monitored by the crackers controlling a lot
of the bot networks, inc
From a recent email I gather this is very off-topic, so I will try to
be brief in my reply.
(Geneva.CH.EU.*) since 3+ years. I can say from my experiences I couldn't
make any kind of communication between botnets and spam. Most Trojan codes I
have looked into doesn't have any command/action to ma
i was recently chastised for posting non-operational content to nanog, and
so, while i am willing to beat the drum for source address validation, i'm
very concerned about commenting further in what has to be the 40th or 50th
version of this thread in the last ten years. with trepidation, then:
>
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004, Gadi Evron wrote:
> > there are many ways of sending spam that dont use port 25..
>
> True, but reducing spam from millions to thousands seems like something good,
> no?
their market wont change tho, you will just force them to use another method..
at one time open relays
there are many ways of sending spam that dont use port 25..
True, but reducing spam from millions to thousands seems like something
good, no?
individual rules are costly to implement and users wont use a service where you
have to pay more for basic services
Several big ISP's are blocking port
If my ISP block port 25, I'll change ISP next day.
But if it will be _configurable_ (blocked by default, but I can change
setting by simple openimng web page and select checkbox) - why not.
- Original Message -
From: "Petri Helenius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gadi Evron" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004, Gadi Evron wrote:
> Blocking port 25 for dynamic ranges means they can't send email, so that
> drone are pretty useless for spammers on that account. Trojan horses
> would have to use local information for the user's own account (from
> Outlook or such).
my users like bein
Next you'll block SIP if we start getting "spam calls"? Or any other
application that pops up and is used by the same people sending spam today?
There is the issue of usability. Why does a Cable user on a dynamic
range need SMTP open?
You're fixing the symptom, not curing the cause. The immedia
Paul Vixie wrote:
2. Filter aggressively. Run a dark-net, and if one of your customers hits it,
blackhole their /32 for both inbound and outbound traffic, flag their record
in your customer database, and wait for them to call. When they call, give
them a list of anti-virus products for their 'put
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
> Abuse using port 25 is a major issue today, why not solve it? If a user
> wants it open, they could always ask for it or even pay more money.
> Perhaps move to a static IP?
Greed. I'd cheerfully pay a REASONABLE amount for same.
Gadi Evron wrote:
Blocking port 25 for dynamic ranges means they can't send email, so
that drone are pretty useless for spammers on that account. Trojan
horses would have to use local information for the user's own account
(from Outlook or such).
Next you'll block SIP if we start getting "spam
Blocking ports one by one and filling the Internet by application level
proxies (SMTP gateways for port 25) is not a road worth travelling.
Pete
Blocking port 25 for dynamic ranges means they can't send email, so that
drone are pretty useless for spammers on that account. Trojan horses
would h
Gadi Evron wrote:
Problem is, we are a fighting a war we already lost. It's put out a
fire here and there, and break a wave while you're at it.
How about seeing some simple measures such as blocking outgoing port
25? at ISP's? Not a perfect solution, but it's a partial solution for
some of the
Yea, verily. This is not an impossible problem for this community; it is
only an impossible problem for any one of us acting totally independently.
And while the solution isn't instant, the tide CAN be turned.
Problem is, we are a fighting a war we already lost. It's put out a fire
here and ther
But compared to the success rate of the bot writers, the anti-bot tools
fall far behind. Some people estimate between 10 million and 30 million
Actually, there are some fine Anti Trojan (AT) tools out there. Try out
The Cleaner and BOClean.
new bots have been created this year. That number is
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> They dont care in that for many people, providing the computer still works,
There are plenty of people driving their cars even though they know that
their catalytic converter doesn't work properly, or their ignition is off
and they're putting muc
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Why don't people want to fix their computers? And even worse, why are
> so many people unsuccessfull fixing their computers?
I had a thread on this a month or two ago (i think it was nanog).. the simple
answer that I find is they just dont care and/or
> Most ISP's wouldn't have to deal with this problem if corporations took
> the time to release better products.
The average corporation is in business to make money. Releasing a better
product than is required to enable revenue and deal with competition would
be irresponsible to their sharehold
Which reminds me -- this is only one of the issues that appeared
om the "SANS Top 20 Internet Vulnerabilities":
http://www.sans.org/top20/
- ferg
-- "J. Oquendo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Most ISP's wouldn't have to deal with this problem if corporations took
the time to release better pro
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004, Gadi Evron wrote:
> And I know people who mail abuse reports for hundreds of such *lists*,
> something /rarely/ gets done.
Easily over 1 million computers are being fixed every year.
But compared to the success rate of the bot writers, the anti-bot tools
fall far behind. Som
Most ISP's wouldn't have to deal with this problem if corporations took
the time to release better products. I was faced with the question of
"What do you do for infected clients?" What can an ISP do. Most of the
An ISP doesn't really have to do anything, either. As long as it is not
in their fin
25 matches
Mail list logo
