(Apologies to nanog, I make a point of not discussing spam issues
here, but I feel an uncontrollable urge to respond to this one as it
concerns Spamhaus directly)
At 20:01 -0400 (GMT) 24/9/03, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:42:39PM -0400,
Richard Welty
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:29:42 +0100, Steve Linford wrote:
for the benefit of those providers on nanag who use our SBL system,
rest assured we will be removing the escalation 'any minute now' as
WCG are now in contact with us and I understand are pulling spammer
plugs.
Elegant understatement
At 07:42 PM 24-09-03 -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
the blacklisting of ISP ranges is very rare, it only occurs perhaps once a
year, in extreme cases. several years ago, the sbl listed sprint's coporate
mail servers during a period when sprint was providing connectivity for
many spamhausen. sprint
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:50:58 +0200 Hank Nussbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AS3339 has a zero tolerance for spamming.
...
None the less, here is a recent email extract I received from someone:
...
Hank, I am not a Spamhaus.org representative in any shape or form.
I do not claim to speak for
case, it is our entire network.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Linford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 8:22 AM
To: Hank Nussbacher; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re[2]: williams spamhaus blacklist
At 12:50 +0200 (GMT) 25/9/03, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
AS3339
Dr. Race - this is the second time I have contacted you concerning a NANOG
mailing list AUP violation. Please refer to the AUP:
http://www.nanog.org/aup.html
If you again violate any terms of the AUP, we'll need to withdraw your
posting privileges from the list.
Susan Harris, Ph.D.
From netadm, received 25/9/03, 9:02 -0400 (GMT):
That describes the escalation procedure of SPEWS, but is not at all
accurate for the SBL, we do not expand listings sideways into
customer space or block whole ISPs [*].
Mr. Linford's Spamhaus has recently blocked our entire ISP because of 2
Ehm, that was because you, infolink.com WERE the spam outfit, of
course we block your 'entire network', it was an entire network of
spammers with no real customers. You can pretend Infolink is an
'EyeEshPee' all you like Mr Leary but what we see is this, from your
ROKSO record:
This is
But it's ok when AboveNet does it?...or actually does much worse by
secretly and arbitrarily blackholing various networks at will, while
advertising connectivity to those networks to their BGP customers and
peers?
So why keep connectivity to them? A contract term? Now that you know of the
[at the risk of getting whacked by Sue Harris, like: what does operational
mean anyway when the flood of criminal activity that's been the subject of
discussion here in recent days is frustrating massive amounts of ordinary
customers/Internet users, who will turn away from the Internet in
On 9/25/2003 at 2:19 PM, Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But it's ok when AboveNet does it?...or actually does much worse by
secretly and arbitrarily blackholing various networks at will, while
advertising connectivity to those networks to their BGP customers and
peers?
So why keep
On 9/25/2003 at 3:04 PM, Susan Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote to me:
This is the third time I've contacted you concerning violations of the
NANOG list AUP. Your message below focuses on spam/blacklists, issues
that are not considered operational and are therefore off-topic for the
list.
gateway.wcg.com (65.77.117.10) is being blacklisted by the
spamhaus service.
Can someone at Williams Communications get this taken care of?
Your mail server is being blocked by everyone who uses spamhaus
and it's delaying important mail from your company to one of our
customers.
gateway.wcg.com (65.77.117.10) is being blacklisted by the spamhaus
service.
Can someone at Williams Communications get this taken care of?
Your mail server is being blocked by everyone who uses spamhaus and it's
delaying important mail from your company to one of our customers.
Maybe I've missed something but since when did spamhaus become
vengeance oriented? All we try to do is eliminate as much spam
as we can using a wide variety of blacklists at the same time.
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Customers who use blacklists compiled by vengeance-oriented folk deserve
Maybe I've missed something but since when did spamhaus become vengeance
oriented? All we try to do is eliminate as much spam as we can using a
wide variety of blacklists at the same time.
The moment they started blacklisting IPs that never sent spam. (AKA
williams corporate mail servers).
In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 05:14:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The moment they started blacklisting IPs that never sent spam. (AKA
williams corporate mail servers).
For those who care:
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL10731
I quote:
] WilTel
Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: williams spamhaus blacklist
In a message written on Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 05:14:04PM
-0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The moment they started blacklisting
this strategy demonstrate some sort of change or is it just a
one off?
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: williams spamhaus blacklist
Maybe I've missed something but since when did spamhaus become vengeance
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:28:52 -0700 Scott Granados [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even though this is off topic, I'd have to say that this seems very odd
from
SpamHaus. They never seemed to isolate entire ranges but seemed more
specific. I can also say they were very fast to remove issues once the
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Customers who use blacklists compiled by vengeance-oriented folk deserve
what they get: No email.
Suggested solutions:
a) whitelist williams
b) stop using SBLs similar to spamhaus.
It is a question of trust: Do you trust spamhaus to block
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Osama and his followers told us for years they didn't like what we
were doing, and then escalated by flying a plane into a building
to get our attention. That must have been ok by the same logic.
Godwin's Law should probably be extended to September
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:01:48PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
What you're missing in my argument is that it doesn't matter. I
have no idea who Eddy Marin is, nor do I care. Blocking wcg's
corporate mail servers is not the solution. Sure, it may get
someone's attention at wcg, but it may
Andy Walden wrote:
Godwin's Law should probably be extended to September 11 references.
Walden's Corollary?
;-)
Eliot
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:01:48 -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Blocking wcg's corporate mail servers is not the solution.
It is the ONLY solution that works, as shown many times including
the case just posted to this list about Sprint.
Sure, it may get
someone's attention at wcg, but it may also
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Andy Walden wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Osama and his followers told us for years they didn't like what we
were doing, and then escalated by flying a plane into a building
to get our attention. That must have been ok by the same logic.
Godwin's
26 matches
Mail list logo
