Paul,
I read Gregg Keizer's piece in CW where FireEye's Fengmin Gong is quoted
as We have registered a couple hundred domains, Gong said, but we
made the decision that we cannot afford to spend so much money to keep
registering so many [domain] names.
Now interposing on the Srizbi system's
'; Skywing
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: McColo and SPAM
We experienced exactly no decrease with the McColo shut down a few
weeks
back, even though we receive 2M+ messages per day. It's interesting
that
each service provider's spam populations are as different as they
are. Some
experienced
06, 2008 1:33 PM
To: Paul Kelly :: Blacknight
Cc: Frank Bulk; 'Peter Serwe'; Skywing; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: McColo and SPAM
What's very interesting to me is the very rhythmic peaks-and-valleys
you show... Seems to go up every day, down during the night;
gradually rising mon-wed
Revolver Onslaught wrote:
Hello,
Since McColo closed, we noticed the spam was far more intensive than before.
However, it seems the amount of spam is similar than than before.
Do you feel the same ?
Many thanks,
RO
I've been getting an fair number of e-mails (up from zero) from
customers
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:14:08 +0100
From: Revolver Onslaught [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: McColo and SPAM
To: nanog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hello,
: Re: McColo and SPAM
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:14:08 +0100
From: Revolver Onslaught [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: McColo and SPAM
To: nanog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO
On Dec 5, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Skywing wrote:
McColo hosted the command and control servers for spam botnets and
didn't originate spam directly, at least primarily, according to my
understanding.
- S
That is correct. Srizbi and Rustok, primarily.
--
bk
originate spam directly, at least primarily, according to my understanding.
- S
-Original Message-
From: Peter Serwe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:49 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: McColo and SPAM
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED
We have not seen any decrease. In the last 24 hours we have seen 3.5
million messages blocked.
-Mike
-Original Message-
From: Revolver Onslaught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:14 PM
To: nanog
Subject: McColo and SPAM
Hello,
Since McColo closed, we noticed
PM
To: Revolver Onslaught; nanog
Subject: RE: McColo and SPAM
We have not seen any decrease. In the last 24 hours we have seen 3.5
million messages blocked.
-Mike
-Original Message-
From: Revolver Onslaught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:14 PM
To: nanog
Seen behind my ISP (gmx.de),
I get almost no spam. Looking into the spam folder I
see some 10% of what I used to see.
On the other other hand when they closed I got an
alarm for my homepage. I got so many wordbooks on
my ssh that they exceeded my traffic limit.
I had to move my sshd to IPv6 only
just one domain.
I know MessageLabs examines spam rates per industry type.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Peter Serwe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:57 PM
To: Skywing
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: McColo and SPAM
Certainly, I have seen a perceptual, yet
Subject: RE: McColo and SPAM
We experienced exactly no decrease with the McColo shut down a few weeks
back, even though we receive 2M+ messages per day. It's interesting that
each service provider's spam populations are as different as they are. Some
experienced gigantic decreases, others didn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Paul Kelly :: Blacknight
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We saw a dramatic decrease. Attached is our dnsbl mirror in .ie, it
mirrors spamhaus amoungst other things.
McColo was just an exercise in managing cyber crime
14 matches
Mail list logo
