On Apr 15, 2008, at 7:31 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://xml.coverpages.org/iodef.html
SO, is it generally accepted to use IODEF to report non-SMTP abuse
(web/port scans, etc)?
Probably not, unless you're sending it to someone
On Apr 15, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:22:59AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
There's a novel idea. Require incoming senior staff at an email
company to work a month at the abuse desk before they can assume the
duties for which they were hired.
My hunch
On Apr 15, 2008, at 11:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Unfortunately many of the skills required to be a competent abuse
desk
worker are quite specific to an abuse desk, and are not typically
possessed
by random
On Apr 13, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
Massive quoting gets old fast so I'll try to summarize and if I
misrepresent your POV in any way my profuse apologies in advance.
First and foremost let me say that if we had a vote here tomorrow on
the spam problem I suspect you'd win but
On Mar 20, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Ray Demain wrote:
We are looking to purchase NXDOMAIN data for an internet survey.
We prefer to receive the data on an hourly basis so it is as fresh as
possible. Our system receives the data from you via
On Mar 20, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mar 20, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Ray Demain wrote:
We are looking to purchase NXDOMAIN data for an internet
On Jan 12, 2008, at 7:02 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
We're bouncing email to houston.rr.com due to the MX being set to
localhost.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ host -t mx houston.rr.com
houston.rr.com mail is handled by 10 localhost.
Setting the MX to 127.0.0.1 seems like an odd way to handle the
On Nov 16, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 22:13 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 10:04 PM, Leigh Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there was, I sure would not join it. It'd be full of I cannot
send
mail to your domain blah blah
On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
From: Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:05:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Hey, SiteFinder is back, again...
Since this is verizon, one wonders why this has never been tried on
wrong, non-working phone numbers?
Visit your
On Oct 12, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Mark Foster wrote:
(If some random dynamic IP host on the other side of the world
started hitting my firewall for no apparent reason, i'd be raising
my eyebrows too. Of course, these days, I have a much better idea
of what is genuinely threatening and
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
That's exactly the problem the goal of tasting is to collect pay
per click ad revenue...
Ten years ago the internet was for porn, now it's for
MLM/Affiliate/PPC scams. As long as
On Aug 2, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Hex Star [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Why would someone in the ISP industry try to spread a virus?
Ironically I
suppose a ISP admin may have their own computer infected... :P
Why would someone assume that the sender in a virus
On Aug 1, 2007, at 6:47 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Up until recently, we were only providing the RIR database
with information about our larger allocations /24 or larger. We
have noticed however that many anti-spam organizations such as
Spamhaus, and Fiveten will use the lack of
On May 24, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Kradorex Xeron wrote:
Very true - If this is going to work, it's goign to have to be on
a global
scale, Not just one country of registrars can be made to correct
the problem
as people who maliciously register
On Mar 31, 2007, at 8:57 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
If the list feels otherwise, and that it is of interest and within
nanog guidelines, then I acquiesce, respecting the greater wisdom of
the list.
You do realize this post is not about Microsoft
On Jan 16, 2007, at 8:36 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
A number of ISPs use njabl.org as a DNS BL server. However, starting
jan 2 a new domain exists njalb.org which is serving A records for
anything queried against it's DNS server. (note the difference: njaBL
vs njaLB). Previous to this date a
On Dec 18, 2006, at 3:39 PM, S. Ryan wrote:
I don't think it should ever be acceptable to have to 'sign up' to
report a security/network problem.
You don't. That's not what SNDS is. It's a feedback loop
sort of thing, a la scomp (and not at all relevant to the
original posters question,
On Oct 30, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Rick Wesson wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Rick,
It would interesting to know how you classify incidents in the
table below
any one of the following:
o being put on a major DNS black list (spamcop, spamhaus, ahbl etc.)
o hosting malware or phishing sites, open
On Oct 30, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
o being put on a major DNS black list (spamcop, spamhaus, ahbl
etc.)
o hosting malware or phishing sites, open proxies
o sending LOTS of SPAM, virus
o IRC abuse
o Botnet CC
o hoping glue/fast flux
o abusive, vulnerable web servers
Some
On Oct 2, 2006, at 10:35 AM, Mike Lyon wrote:
Is anyone else noticing new AOL lameness that when you send an e-mail
to an AOL user and if the e-mail has a URL in it but the reverse
lookup of that url doesn't come back to that domain name that AOL's
postmaster rejects it and gives you this
On Oct 2, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Mike Lyon wrote:
OK, I should clarify this. The description that is on that link I put
in my original e-mail doesn't actually describe what is happening, but
that is the error they spit back at me.
What really is happening is that the url that is in my e-mail
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
On Jun 21, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
If the point of the technology is to add a degree of anonymity, you
can be pretty sure that a marker expressly designed to state the
message Hi, I'm anonymous! will never be a
On Jun 17, 2006, at 6:29 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Apologies if this has been brought up before.
Being as I'm not a network administrator myself (although I do filter
some stuff using pf and ipfw on my severs), I'm curious what NAs
think of the following technology:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Martin Lathoud wrote:
Hi,
One of our web servers got hammered by ~5K req/s for hours from
browsers with the following referer:
[snip]
target[0]=http://weerona.com/ph/order.php?%rand%;
target[1]=http://fabutons.info/aw/001/?%rand%;
On Feb 22, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Nicole wrote:
This was sent to me on another mailing list. I am on a number of
smaller and or community mailing lists who feel very threatend by
this.
Only because they don't understand it.
Pretty much of all that you included is simply untrue. Whether
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:55:15PM -0700, Vicky Rode wrote:
Just wondering how many have transitioned to djbdns from bind and if so
any feedback.
djbdns has lower performance, both as an authoritative and recursive
resolver, than bind.
It's less flexible than bind9. But it's data files and
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:36:03AM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
1) A list already exists (spam-l) where these topics are discussed
regularly and that list is a better place to discuss them due to the
large number of people who have in-depth knowledge and regularly
contribute on those topics.
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 10:51:42AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After some senseless Googling, I'm at a loss. I'm looking for a very
comprehensive, up-to-date example of an AUP that covers spam.
You might want to ask this question at a place like
http://www.groklaw.net/
First of
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 05:37:55PM -0400, Daniel Reed wrote:
To the original poster and others: Do host a web server on port 80 of the
machines involved in the probe. Name the machines after your project (do not
call them www or else people might indeed think it is a compromised
machine!).
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 09:03:38PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
According to the Washington Post
America Online says it has seen a dramatic decline in spam over the
past month, due to improved filtering techniques and fear of
litigation under a new U.S. law. In a one-month
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 11:49:36PM +0200, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Presumably the 6.8m figure is how many users click the 'spam' button in the AOL
mail client and not how many abuse complaints are sent in?
Probably, yes.
AOL isn't a huge source of abuse compared to most
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 11:38:01AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note: delurk.
Some of the commercial traffic shaping devices reviewed here are tens of
thousands of dollars. For a smaller ISP (i.e. less than a DS3 of
aggregate upstream bandwidth), that kind of expense doesn't make
I'm seeing bulk access to .com and .net blocked at the moment. Other zones
are available from Verisigns ftp server as usual, but .net and .com are
empty (and the signature files are listing them as empty too).
Anyone heard anything from Verisign about this?
Cheers,
Steve
--
-- Steve Atkins
34 matches
Mail list logo
