Re: improved NANOG filtering

AFAIK (IDK how either) this hasn't been a big issue in the past few years. Is it really worth worrying about? I notified the MARC admin and it was removed there within a few hours too - a dozen easily tracked messages in a few hours and a few hours after that, it's done (or more like, filteres).

Re: improved NANOG filtering

> If you really are a NANOG admin, I suggest adding some kind of URI filtering > for blocking the message based on the the domains/IPs found in the clickable > links in the body of the message. And the first person who says “who has seen $URL” or similar in a message gets bounced, then bitches

improved NANOG filtering

On 10/26/2015 12:06 PM, Job Snijders wrote: I expect some protection mechanisms will be implemented, rather sooner then later, to prevent this style of incident from happening again. Job, I can't tell for sure if you're a NANOG admin? Or if you're making educated guesses about what you think

Re: improved NANOG filtering

On 10/26/2015 5:15 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: And the first person who says “who has seen $URL” or similar in a message gets bounced, then bitches about “operational nature” of NANOG. I think it is probably not a great idea to add things like URI checkers to NANOG. We can bitch & moan

Re: improved NANOG filtering

Please stop using this as an opportunity to spam your commercial anti-spam list ffs On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: > On 10/26/2015 12:06 PM, Job Snijders wrote: >> >> I expect some protection mechanisms will be implemented, >> rather sooner then

Re: improved NANOG filtering

What's needed is 20 (pick a number) trusted volunteer admins with the mailman password whose only capacity is to (make a list: put the list into moderation mode, disable an acct). Obviously it would be nice if the software could help with this (limited privileges, logging) but it could be done