On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:22:02PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
build expertise on managing it. If you go to SpamHaus you will see a major
ISP and their netblocks listed and associated with known spammers. What is
this ISP doing about this? Nothing! ?My guess is that they look at their
I think ARIN is no party to contact all RBL's and do any cleanup of
'contaminated' address space. The only steps ARIN might do are:
- When requesting address space, one should be able to indicate whether
receiving previous used address space would be unwanted or not.
- When assigning address
Well, I haven't even had coffee yet and...
Get the removals:
curl -ls
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-issued/2009-September/000270.html |
grep Remove | grep -v PRE
Get the additions:
mahannig$ curl -ls
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-issued/2009-September/000270.html |
grep Add |
on a sliding scale based on the amount of contamination and churn.
the more contamination, the higher the fee.
Shawn Somers
Michiel Klaver wrote:
-
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:57:58 +0200
From: Michiel Klaver mich...@klaver.it
Subject: RE: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Well, I haven't even had coffee yet and...
Get the removals:
curl -ls
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-issued/2009-September/000270.html |
grep Remove | grep -v PRE
Get the additions:
mahannig$ curl -ls
The mailing sent daily contains both.
-Original Message-
From: Justin Shore [mailto:jus...@justinshore.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:18 AM
To: Martin Hannigan
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Well, I haven't even
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:01:48 PDT, Shawn Somers said:
Anyone that intentionally uses address space in a manner that they
know will cause it to become contaminated should be denied on any
further address space requests.
You *do* realize that the people you're directing that paragraph at are
so... this thread has a couple of really interesting characteristics.
a couple are worth mentioning more directly (they have been alluded to
elsewhere)...
Who gets to define bad - other than a blacklist operator?
Are the common, consistent defintions of contamination?
I believe there is another side to that argument as well.
If I operate a regional ISP and request address space for dynamic
address pools I am aware of a few things:
1) I am fully aware that there is a chance a customer's system could
become infected and generate millions of malicious
on Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 09:57:58AM -0500, Tom Pipes wrote:
[...] We have done our best to ensure these blocks conform to RFC
standards, including the proper use of reverse DNS pointers.
Sorry to jump in so late, been catching up from vacation. I'm checking
out the PTRs for the /18 you mention,
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
I think costs of maintaining an abuse helpdesk is a big factor here. I don't
see many ISP's putting money and resources into an abuse helpdesk and this
is because it is low cost to obtain a Netblock so why should one employ and
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
so... this thread has a couple of really interesting characteristics.
a couple are worth mentioning more directly (they have been alluded to
elsewhere)...
as always, despite your choice in floral patterned shirts :) good
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:34:14PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
so... this thread has a couple of really interesting characteristics.
a couple are worth mentioning more directly (they have been alluded to
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:29 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 09:34:14PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
so... this thread has a couple of really interesting characteristics.
a couple
Christopher Morrow wrote:
Spammers have a lot of variables to change in this equation, RIR's
dont always have the ability to see all of the variables, nor
correlate all of the changes they see :(
Being a crimnal enterprise there are some tools in your kit that a
legitimate business does not
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Christopher Morrow wrote:
Spammers have a lot of variables to change in this equation, RIR's
dont always have the ability to see all of the variables, nor
correlate all of the changes they see :(
Being a crimnal
On 9 Sep 2009, at 06:04, Peter Beckman wrote:
How about a trial period from ARIN? You get your IP block, and you
get 30 days to determine if it is clean or not.
The reuse issue is possibly decades away in v6 land.
The reuse issue can't really be solved for v4 in a year or two.
Sounds
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:45:03PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
skip a note about isc having quite a few legacy blocks
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
There is nothing stopping us
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 11:44:44AM -0700, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
Best practices for the public or subscription RBLs should be to place
a TTL on the entry of no more than, say, 90 days or thereabouts.
But there's no reason to do so, and a number of reasons not to, including
the very high
On Sep 14, 2009, at 6:49 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
...
For example: Ron Guilmette has recently pointed out that notorious
spammer
Scott Richter has apparently hijacked *another* /16 block --
150.230.0.0/16.
I've dropped that block into various local blacklists, and in some
cases,
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:43 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Sep 11, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I honestly don't think that it's up to them to create a set-aside
either,
hence my comment about behind the scenes activities. I appreciate you
detailing that, but I
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:05 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Sep 14, 2009, at 6:49 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
...
For example: Ron Guilmette has recently pointed out that notorious
spammer
Scott Richter has apparently hijacked *another* /16 block --
150.230.0.0/16.
oh lokoie,
On 9/13/09 12:49 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Frank Bulk wrote:
[]
If anything, there's more of a disincentive than ever before for
ARIN to spend time on netblock sanitization.
This whole thread seems to be about shifting (I.E. by externalizing)
the costs of remediation. presumably the entities
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Otis [mailto:do...@mail-abuse.org]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 1:41 PM
To: joel jaeggli
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation, replaced by registered use
On 9/13/09 12:49 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Frank Bulk wrote
On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Perhaps ICANN could require registries establish a clearing-house,
where at no cost, those assigned a network would register their
intent to initiate bulk traffic, such as email, from specific
addresses.
ICANN can't require the RIRs do
Subject: Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation, replaced by registered use
On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Perhaps ICANN could require registries establish a clearing-house,
where at no cost, those assigned a network would register their intent
to initiate bulk traffic
Frank Bulk wrote:
With scarcity of IPv4 addresses, organizations are more desperate than ever
to receive an allocation. If anything, there's more of a disincentive than
ever before for ARIN to spend time on netblock sanitization.
I do think that ARIN should inform the new netblock owner if it
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Justin Shore jus...@justinshore.comwrote:
Frank Bulk wrote:
With scarcity of IPv4 addresses, organizations are more desperate than
ever
to receive an allocation. If anything, there's more of a disincentive
than
ever before for ARIN to spend time on
On Sep 11, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I honestly don't think that it's up to them to create a set-aside
either,
hence my comment about behind the scenes activities. I appreciate you
detailing that, but I honestly don't think it matters since as you
mentioned
you get
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org wrote:
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Alex Lanstein wrote:
Along the same lines, I noticed that the worst Actor in recent
memory (McColo - AS26780) stopped paying their bills to ARIN and
their addresses have been returned to the
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
skip a note about isc having quite a few legacy blocks
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
There is nothing stopping us using IPv6 especially for MTA's.
that'd solve the spam problem... for a
Joe == Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net writes:
Joe Show me ONE major MTA which allows you to configure an expiration
Joe for an ACL entry.
Any MTA which supports using an sql db as its backend. Postfix is a
fine example.
You just define the table and the query to either have an until column,
or
Joe == Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net writes:
Joe Show me ONE major MTA which allows you to configure an expiration
Joe for an ACL entry.
Any MTA which supports using an sql db as its backend. Postfix is a
fine example.
You just define the table and the query to either have an until
Joe == Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net writes:
Joe So, you agree, MTA's do not implement this functionality. It's
Joe obviously possible to make it happen through shell scripting,
Joe database tricks,
No, I do not agree.
The sql backend is part of the MTA; features added by offering a sql
backend
Joe == Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net writes:
Joe So, you agree, MTA's do not implement this functionality. It's
Joe obviously possible to make it happen through shell scripting,
Joe database tricks,
No, I do not agree.
The sql backend is part of the MTA; features added by offering a
, September 09, 2009 5:40 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation
snip
They can (and IMHO should) determine the state it is in before they
reallocate it. What happens next is obviously unpredictable but in
reality an IP that isn't being blocked today and isn't being
list
Subject: Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation
snip
They can (and IMHO should) determine the state it is in before they
reallocate it. What happens next is obviously unpredictable but in
reality an IP that isn't being blocked today and isn't being used (by
anyone) is highly
and then that's PART of the MTA. Otherwise, it's an add-on
of some sort.
Given that the point I was making was about capabilities *included* in
the MTA, and given that I *said* you could add on such functions, it's
kind of silly to try to confuse the issue in this manner.
CommuniGate Pro
Peter Beckman wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Mark Andrews wrote:
What a load of rubbish. How is ARIN or any RIR/LIR supposed to
know the intent of use?
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
Because the cost of determining who is good and
Benjamin Billon wrote:
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
snip
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
snip
Yeah. When ISP will start receiving SMTP traffic in IPv6, they could
start to accept whitelisted
Marty,
On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Not sure when ICANN got into the business of economic bailouts,
??
The blog posting implies it:
AfriNIC and LACNIC have fewest IPv4 /8s and service the regions
with the most developing economies. We decided that those RIRs
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:23 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Marty,
It's possible that not everything is above the table as well.
Actually, no. The whole point in publishing the algorithm IANA is using in
allocating /8s is to allow anyone to verify for themselves we are
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:13:18PM -0700, Jay Hennigan wrote:
JC Dill wrote:
As for a role account, there is postmaster. I would think that the
best hope in the real world, rather than an autoresponder would be an
RFC that clearly defines text accompanying an SMTP rejection notice
GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation
Greetings,
We obtained a direct assigned IP block 69.197.64.0/18 from ARIN in 2008. This
block has been cursed (for lack of a better word) since we obtained it. It
seems like every customer we have added has had
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Mark Andrews wrote:
What a load of rubbish. How is ARIN or any RIR/LIR supposed to
know the intent of use?
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
Because the cost of determining who is good and who is not has a great
cost.
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
snip
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
snip
Yeah. When ISP will start receiving SMTP traffic in IPv6, they could
start to accept whitelisted senders only.
IPv6 emails ==
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:42:13PM +0200, Benjamin Billon wrote:
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
snip
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
snip
Yeah. When ISP will start receiving SMTP traffic in IPv6,
Benjamin Billon wrote:
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
snip
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
snip
Yeah. When ISP will start receiving SMTP traffic in IPv6, they could
start to accept whitelisted senders
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Benjamin Billon wrote:
Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
are good?
snip
Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
snip
Yeah. When ISP will start receiving SMTP traffic in IPv6, they could start to
You're not Hotmail =)
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:30:02 PDT, Leo Vegoda said:
Putting these addresses back into use does not mean that they have to
be allocated to networks where they'll number mail servers. ARIN staff
is doubtless aware of the history of these blocks and will presumably
do their best to allocate them
Because the cost of determining who is good and who is not has a great
cost. If you buy an IP block, regardless of your intent, that IP block
should not have the ill-will of the previous owner passed on with it.
Might as well be the end of discussion, right there, then, because what
On Sep 9, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Not sure when ICANN got into the business of economic bailouts,
??
but the mechanism that ICANN has defined seems patently unfair.
RFC 2777 is unfair? Or are you unhappy that LACNIC and AfriNIC have
2 /8s from the least tainted pools?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Sep 9, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Not sure when ICANN got into the business of economic bailouts,
??
The blog posting implies it:
AfriNIC and LACNIC have fewest IPv4 /8s and service the regions
On 09/09/2009 8:48, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
[...]
What a load of rubbish. How is ARIN or any RIR/LIR supposed to
know the intent of use?
In my limited experience, requesting address space from ARIN involved
describing what I would be doing with it. YMMV.
Leo
--- leo.veg...@icann.org wrote:
In my limited experience, requesting address space from ARIN involved
describing what I would be doing with it. YMMV.
-
That's the easy part of the process. Proof of what you did with what you
already have assigned to
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
sounds like domain tasting to me.
Oops! Oh yeah. Spammer gets an allocation...
Well, if that netblock was clean before, it sure isn't now! May I
please have another?
Lather, rinse, repeat.
--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering -
On 08/09/09 21:34, Joe Greco wrote:
Show me ONE major MTA which allows you to configure an expiration for
an ACL entry.
This is fairly trivial to do with Exim by storing your acl entries in a
database or directory with a field/attribute for expiry, and an
appropriate router configuration. No
Show me ONE major MTA which allows you to configure an expiration for
an ACL entry.
The problem with your opinion, and it's a fine opinion, and it's even a
good opinion, is that it has very little relationship to the tools which
are given to people in order to accomplish blocking.
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
sounds like domain tasting to me.
Oops! Oh yeah. Spammer gets an allocation...
Well, if that netblock was clean before, it sure isn't now! May I
please have another?
Lather, rinse, repeat.
THAT would probably be easy enough to detect; RIR
[In the message entitled Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation on Sep 8,
14:34, Joe Greco writes:]
there is a fundamental disconnect here. the IP space is neutral.
it has no bias toward or against social behaviours. its a tool.
the actual/real target here are the people who are using
John,
ARIN's role as the entity engaged in legal contractual relationship with
the previous owners of the space puts it in the position to insert
enforceable contract clauses to deter and/or mitigate graffiti in
allocations.
Policy proposals probably are not required for this.
Space
Cleaning up a block of IPs previously used by shady characters has a
real cost, both in time and money. The argument as I see it is who
bears the responsibility and cost of that cleanup.
... and as we all know the fundamental axiom of Internet economics is
to foist of as many of your costs as
John,
ARIN's role as the entity engaged in legal contractual relationship with
the previous owners of the space puts it in the position to insert
enforceable contract clauses to deter and/or mitigate graffiti in
allocations.
That's complicated. How do you define graffiti? Just for
, etc.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jay Hennigan [mailto:j...@west.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 1:14 PM
To: John Curran
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation
John Curran wrote:
Folks -
It appears that we have a real operational problem
Subject: Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation
How about a trial period from ARIN? You get your IP block, and you get 30
days to determine if it is clean or not. Do some testing, check the
blacklists, do some magic to see if there are network-specific blacklists
that might prevent your customers
Skywing wrote:
What's to stop spammers from doing this to cycle through blocks in
rapid-fashion?
This proposal seems easily abusable to me.
Oh, I don't know, maybe ARIN staff can say no? The process is heavy with
human interaction, there is nothing rapid about it, and bears no
comparison
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
Skywing wrote:
What's to stop spammers from doing this to cycle through blocks in
rapid-fashion?
This proposal seems easily abusable to me.
Oh, I don't know, maybe ARIN staff can say no? The process is heavy with
On Sep 8, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:43:39PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
[snip]
Could some folks from the appropriate networks explain why
this is such a problem and/or suggest additional steps that
ARIN or the receipts should be taking to avoid this
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:13:44 EDT, Martin Hannigan said:
Not sure that this is an ARIN problem more than an operational problem since
RBL's are opt-in. An effort to identify RBL's that are behaving poorly is
probably more interesting at this point, no?
I suspect the problem isn't poor RBLs,
Joe Greco wrote:
John Curran wrote:
On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, JC Dill wrote:
It seems simple and obvious that ARIN, RIPE, et. al. should
determine the blacklist state of a reclaimed IP group and ensure
that the IP group is usable before re-allocating it.
When IPs are
JC Dill wrote:
Joe Greco wrote:
Answer queries to whether or not
IP space X is currently blocked (potentially at one of hundreds or
thousands of points in their system, which corporate security may not
wish to share, or even give some random intern access to)? Process
reports of new ARIN
On Sep 9, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
The problem of tainted ipv4 allocations probably grows from here
since at
some point in the near future there isn't going to be much left in
terms of
clean space to allocate. We're running out of v4 addresses in case
anyone
forgot.
...@arin.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 1:43 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation
Folks -
It appears that we have a real operational problem, in that ARIN
does indeed reissue space that has been reclaimed/returned after
a hold-down period
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Alex Lanstein alanst...@fireeye.com
wrote:
Along the same lines, I noticed that the worst Actor in recent memory
(McColo - AS26780) stopped paying their bills to ARIN and their addresses
have been returned to the
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Alex Lanstein wrote:
Along the same lines, I noticed that the worst Actor in recent
memory (McColo - AS26780) stopped paying their bills to ARIN and
their addresses have been returned to the pool.
It's my opinion that a very select number of CIDR blocks
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org wrote:
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Alex Lanstein wrote:
Along the same lines, I noticed that the worst Actor in recent
memory (McColo - AS26780) stopped paying their bills to ARIN and
their addresses have been returned to
In message e1decfc9-80ef-40fa-9d98-5c622aacc...@icann.org, Leo Vegoda writes:
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Alex Lanstein wrote:
Along the same lines, I noticed that the worst Actor in recent =20
memory (McColo - AS26780) stopped paying their bills to ARIN and =20
their addresses have been
Greetings,
We obtained a direct assigned IP block 69.197.64.0/18 from ARIN in 2008. This
block has been cursed (for lack of a better word) since we obtained it. It
seems like every customer we have added has had repeated issues with being
blacklisted by DUL and the cable carriers. (AOL,
Tom Pipes wrote:
Greetings,
We obtained a direct assigned IP block 69.197.64.0/18 from ARIN in 2008. This block
has been cursed (for lack of a better word) since we obtained it. It seems like
every customer we have added has had repeated issues with being blacklisted by DUL
and the cable
Folks -
It appears that we have a real operational problem, in that ARIN
does indeed reissue space that has been reclaimed/returned after
a hold-down period, and but it appears that even once they are
removed from the actual source RBL's, there are still ISP's who
are manually
John, its about the same situation you get when people use manually
updated bogon filters.
A much larger problem, I must admit .. having ISPs follow the maawg
best practices might help, that - and attending MAAWG sessions
(www.maawg.org - Published Documents)
That said most of the larger
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
That said most of the larger players already attend MAAWG - that
leaves rural ISPs, small universities, corporate mailservers etc etc
that dont have full time postmasters, and where you're more likely to
run into this issue.
I've found the opposite to hold true
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
John, its about the same situation you get when people use manually
updated bogon filters.
A much larger problem, I must admit .. having ISPs follow the maawg
best practices might help, that - and attending MAAWG sessions
(www.maawg.org - Published Documents)
John Curran wrote:
Folks -
It appears that we have a real operational problem, in that ARIN
does indeed reissue space that has been reclaimed/returned after
a hold-down period, and but it appears that even once they are
removed from the actual source RBL's, there are still ISP's who
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, John Curran wrote:
I'm sure there's an excellent reason why these addresses stay
blocked, but am unable to fathom what exactly that is...
Could some folks from the appropriate networks explain why
this is such a problem and/or suggest additional steps that
ARIN or
On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
John Curran wrote:
snip
I'm sure there's an excellent reason why these addresses stay
blocked, but am unable to fathom what exactly that is...
Could some folks from the appropriate networks explain why
this is such a problem and/or
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:43:39 EDT, John Curran said:
I'm sure there's an excellent reason why these addresses stay
blocked, but am unable to fathom what exactly that is...
If I'm a smaller shop with limited clue, there's 3 likely colloraries:
1) Even a smallish spam blast is big enough to
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:16:33AM -0500, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
Tom Pipes wrote:
Greetings,
We obtained a direct assigned IP block 69.197.64.0/18 from ARIN in 2008.
This block has been cursed (for lack of a better word) since we obtained
it. It seems like every customer we have added
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, John Curran wrote:
I'm sure there's an excellent reason why these addresses stay
blocked, but am unable to fathom what exactly that is...
Could some folks from the appropriate networks explain why
this is such a problem and/or suggest additional steps that
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
It seems like it *could* be useful to have a system to notify of network
delegation changes, but it also seems like if this was particularly
important to anyone, then someone would have found a trivial way to
implement at least a poor man's version of it.
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
This is not actually a new problem. ISPs have been fighting this for
some time. When a dud customer spams from a given IP range and gets it
placed in various RBLs, when that customer is booted or otherwise
removed, that block will probably get
Seth Mattinen wrote:
I was always under the impression that smaller orgs were not allowed to
join the MAAWG club.
They're allowed. At $4k/year minimum, up to $25K/year.
By the way, among the members...
Experian CheetahMail
ExactTarget, Inc
Responsys, Inc.
Vertical Response, Inc
Yesmail
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
It seems like it *could* be useful to have a system to notify of network
delegation changes, but it also seems like if this was particularly
important to anyone, then someone would have found a trivial way to
implement at least a poor man's version of
John Curran wrote:
On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, JC Dill wrote:
It seems simple and obvious that ARIN, RIPE, et. al. should
determine the blacklist state of a reclaimed IP group and ensure
that the IP group is usable before re-allocating it.
When IPs are reclaimed, first check to see if the
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 02:34:10PM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
there is a fundamental disconnect here. the IP space is neutral.
it has no bias toward or against social behaviours. its a tool.
the actual/real target here are the people who are using these tools
to be antisocial. blacklisting
Jason Bertoch wrote:
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
That said most of the larger players already attend MAAWG - that
leaves rural ISPs, small universities, corporate mailservers etc etc
that dont have full time postmasters, and where you're more likely to
run into this issue.
I've found the
John Curran wrote:
On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, JC Dill wrote:
It seems simple and obvious that ARIN, RIPE, et. al. should
determine the blacklist state of a reclaimed IP group and ensure
that the IP group is usable before re-allocating it.
When IPs are reclaimed, first check
Seth Mattinen wrote:
I was always under the impression that smaller orgs were not allowed to
join the MAAWG club.
I've heard that, too, but have no idea where it comes from. It's not true;
there's no size requirement or anything like that.
http://www.maawg.org/ has the membership
J.D. Falk wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
I was always under the impression that smaller orgs were not allowed to
join the MAAWG club.
I've heard that, too, but have no idea where it comes from. It's not
true; there's no size requirement or anything like that.
http://www.maawg.org/ has the
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
