Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-21 Thread Anne P. Mitchell Esq.
> On 6/13/17 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: >> But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. But it is illegal under the laws of nearly every other technology-enabled developed country. And there are at least a few people on this list who are in those countries. And once

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-21 Thread Tom Beecher
I was just thinking that as I caught up on the thread. I ignore unsolicited sales contacts as a general rule. If they persist to the point of annoyance, I'll kindly advise them that I'm not interested, and ask they cease. If they still persist, I'll drop out the 'I'll never do business with you,

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-21 Thread Ge Dupin
I think so And I said it a coulpe of times already Ge > Le 21 juin 2017 à 15:25, Josh Luthman a écrit : > > Does anyone else feel this thread has generated more spam in their inbox > than the vendors? > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct:

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-21 Thread Josh Luthman
Does anyone else feel this thread has generated more spam in their inbox than the vendors? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > On 6/13/17 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread Jay Hennigan
On 6/13/17 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that? Seed the list with one or two spamtrap addresses never seen in the

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread Jay Hennigan
On 6/13/17 1:56 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I think it would too subject to wild variance in what someone views as bad. Actual SPAM (viagra, Nigerian prices, etc.), of course. Industry-related SPAM, probably. Targeted marketing (looking for someone at Facebook, seeing someone from Facebook and

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread Jay Hennigan
On 6/13/17 8:31 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: I would hardly call this a flood. But my point is that most people posting to NANOG, being technical people, respond to notifications that they are spamming. Your example email illustrates this perfectly. Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread Scott Weeks
--- nanog@nanog.org wrote: From: i mawsog via NANOG :: Agree, this thread has generated more "spam" or noise :: for all of us collectively.  It's not spam. Look up the definition of spam. Also, just block the thread in your email client. :: Some amount of relevant "spam"

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread Dan Hollis
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Rod Beck wrote: And how do you tell if an address was scraped or not? There are databases and zillions of other ways of gaining addresses. One-off addresses. I've used it numerous times to catch the origin, companies like Roland Corporation either leaking databases or

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <583541363.462.1497966071756.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>, Mike Ha mmett writes: > I'm still not sure people understand the situation. There's an attendee > list, but that list doesn't have e-mail addresses. It didn't come from > the mailing list. The person looked up who went to

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread Rod Beck
Exactly. But some people enjoy complaining. - R. From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 3:41:13 PM Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees I'm still not

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread t...@pelican.org
On Tuesday, 20 June, 2017 14:41, "Mike Hammett" said: > I'm still not sure people understand the situation. There's an attendee list, > but > that list doesn't have e-mail addresses. It didn't come from the mailing > list. The > person looked up who went to the conference and

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread Mike Hammett
7:09 AM Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees On Tuesday, 20 June, 2017 14:26, "Rod Beck" <rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com> said: > And how do you tell if an address was scraped or not? There are databases and > zillions of other ways of gaining addresses

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread t...@pelican.org
On Tuesday, 20 June, 2017 14:26, "Rod Beck" said: > And how do you tell if an address was scraped or not? There are databases and > zillions of other ways of gaining addresses. > > > I doubt you can distinguish the source with any real reliability. Depending

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread Rod Beck
Temkin <d...@temk.in> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 11:05 PM To: Jon Lewis Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Jon Lewis <jle...@lewis.org> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Dave Temkin wrote: > > This is highly inaccurate.

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-19 Thread Ge Dupin
exactly it is becoming really painful Ge > Le 16 juin 2017 à 17:06, Alexander Maassen a écrit : > > the discussion about the external spam kinda exceeds the volume of the spam > itself. just my 2 cents. > just block, delete, continue life > > Kind regards, > Alexander

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-19 Thread Ge Dupin
It looks like there are more spams coming from these discussions than from the original Scams/Spams.. Ge > Le 14 juin 2017 à 14:26, Rodney Joffe a écrit : > > > >> On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: >> >> But as I said, harvesting

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-19 Thread Joe Hamelin
If they paid for a booth at beer & gear (i.e.; indirectly bought me a drink), then I'd give them _one_ pass on a targeted email. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-19 Thread i mawsog via NANOG
Agree, this thread has generated more "spam" or noise for all of us collectively.  Some amount of relevant "spam"  has to be tolerated for vendor to continue supporting NANOG. Also relevant "spam" or sales call is a good way to find out about new technologies , that one may not have heard about

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-16 Thread Alexander Maassen
the discussion about the external spam kinda exceeds the volume of the spam itself. just my 2 cents. just block, delete, continue life Kind regards, Alexander Maassen - Technical Maintenance Engineer Parkstad Support BV- Maintainer DroneBL- Peplink Certified Engineer Oorspronkelijk

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-15 Thread bzs
On June 14, 2017 at 14:22 goe...@sasami.anime.net (Dan Hollis) wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, b...@theworld.com wrote: > > Merely deciding not to patronize them may not be sufficient and that's > > why we make that sort of thing just outright illegal rather than hope > > market forces will

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-15 Thread Anne P. Mitchell Esq.
> You make a good point. But I wonder how often spammers are so obvious, and I > wonder if his "leveraging" falls amiss of CAN-SPAM's specific prohibition: > > > (I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the users of a website, > proprietary service, or other online public forum operated

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread Dan Hollis
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, b...@theworld.com wrote: Merely deciding not to patronize them may not be sufficient and that's why we make that sort of thing just outright illegal rather than hope market forces will suffice. Most spam is sent from compromised machines anyway, so there are already

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread Dave Temkin
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Dave Temkin wrote: > > This is highly inaccurate. The PC and Board have done everything in our >> power to keep sponsorship out of the program. Yes, Beer & Gear looks like >> a >> NASCAR race, but that

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread Jon Lewis
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Dave Temkin wrote: This is highly inaccurate. The PC and Board have done everything in our power to keep sponsorship out of the program. Yes, Beer & Gear looks like a NASCAR race, but that helps fund not only the program, but the numerous other outreach programs that NANOG

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread Dave Temkin
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern > > (gst...@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70. > > ... > > Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will > >

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread bzs
On June 13, 2017 at 22:16 niels=na...@bakker.net (Niels Bakker) wrote: > * m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) [Tue 13 Jun 2017, 21:26 CEST]: > >And your proposed solution is? > > Simple. Stop buying from spammers. Although a perfectly reasonable suggestion the problem is that the cost of

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread Brett Frankenberger
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 02:02:47PM -, John Levine wrote: > In article <63cd2031-701d-4567-b88a-2986e8b3f...@beckman.org> you write: > >But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. > > This might be a good time to review 15 USC 7704(b)(1), which is titled > "Address

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread John Levine
In article <63cd2031-701d-4567-b88a-2986e8b3f...@beckman.org> you write: >But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. This might be a good time to review 15 USC 7704(b)(1), which is titled "Address harvesting and dictionary attacks". >And the requirement to not send you UCE

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread Brett Frankenberger
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 01:21:21PM +, Mel Beckman wrote: > Rodney, > > You make a good point. But I wonder how often spammers are so > obvious, and I wonder if his "leveraging" falls amiss of CAN-SPAM's > specific prohibition: > > (I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the users of a

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread Rodney Joffe
I guess that explains why so many newcomers are confused about what spam is. > On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Ge Dupin wrote: > > It looks like there are more spams coming from these discussions than from > the original Scams/Spams.. > Ge > >>> Le 14 juin 2017 à 14:26, Rodney

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread Mel Beckman
Ge, On the contrary, the discussion has been limited, focused, and amazingly civil for NANOG :) I find it valuable. -mel On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Ge Dupin > wrote: It looks like there are more spams coming from these discussions than from the

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread Mel Beckman
Rodney, You make a good point. But I wonder how often spammers are so obvious, and I wonder if his "leveraging" falls amiss of CAN-SPAM's specific prohibition: (I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the users of a website, proprietary service, or other online public forum operated by

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-14 Thread Rodney Joffe
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the > requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how > do you prove that someone did that? > Because he said so?

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mel Beckman
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that? -mel via cell On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:44 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> It seems that more than

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Scott Weeks
:: What do you suggest? Shoot them at Dawn? :-) Not all of them. Just shoot the first one and the rest will pay attention! ;-) :: We don't have a runaway spamming problem on the list. A lot of it has to do with naming-n-shaming, which he did. Instead of a firing squad, it's a financial

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Randy Bush
> It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern > (gst...@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70. > ... > Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will > show your reaction via your pocketbooks. traditional community attitudes left

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , Mel Beckman writes: > Mark, > > What law makes the harvesting of email addresses illegal? None that I > know of. If you can trust wikipedia sending to harvested addresses is illegal under CAN-SPAM.

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mel Beckman
Mark, What law makes the harvesting of email addresses illegal? None that I know of. -mel via cell > On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > In message , Mel Beckman > writes: >> Mark, >> >> The problem with

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , Mel Beckman writes: > Mark, > > The problem with your idea is that these NANOG attendee emails aren't > illegal under CAN-SPAM. This toothless Act let's anyone email any address > they want, however obtained, with virtually any

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mel Beckman
Mark, The problem with your idea is that these NANOG attendee emails aren't illegal under CAN-SPAM. This toothless Act let's anyone email any address they want, however obtained, with virtually any content (except sexually explicit), as long as they don't use misleading headers, deceptive

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <38e506a8-247a-478f-9c4d-21602bee6...@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writes: > That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial > punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products? Everyone that has received the email bring a action under the CAN-SPAM act.

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mike Hammett
Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:16:57 PM Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Mike Hammett wrote: > I think it would too subject to wild variance in what someone views as bad. > Actual SPAM (viagra, Nigerian prices, etc.), of course. > Industry-related SPAM, p

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Dan Hollis
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Mike Hammett wrote: I think it would too subject to wild variance in what someone views as bad. Actual SPAM (viagra, Nigerian prices, etc.), of course. Industry-related SPAM, probably. Targeted marketing (looking for someone at Facebook, seeing someone from Facebook and

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mike Hammett
ne 13, 2017 3:47:03 PM Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:47:23PM +, Mel Beckman wrote: > That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial > punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products? I don't think the

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Rich Kulawiec
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:47:23PM +, Mel Beckman wrote: > That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial > punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products? I don't think there's a mechanism to do that. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) However, I think it's

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread John Osmon
> > From: "Chuck Anderson" <c...@wpi.edu> > > To: nanog@nanog.org > > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 12:47:17 PM > > Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees > > > > I've started keeping a list of companies who make unsolicited >

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Niels Bakker
* m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) [Tue 13 Jun 2017, 21:26 CEST]: And your proposed solution is? Simple. Stop buying from spammers. -- Niels.

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mel Beckman
Dan, And your proposed solution is? -mel via cell > On Jun 13, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Dan Hollis wrote: > > It's funny to see all this apologia for nanog spammers and attempts to > normalize the practice and brush it off as acceptable or unavoidable, > especially after

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Dan Hollis
It's funny to see all this apologia for nanog spammers and attempts to normalize the practice and brush it off as acceptable or unavoidable, especially after the "omg evil politicans voted to rollback fcc privacy rules and let companies sell your data" derpy derp thread. You can't have it

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Bryan Fields
On 6/13/17 1:12 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know > exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective > gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the > spamming will not only continue, it

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mike Hammett
ect: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees I've started keeping a list of companies who make unsolicited calls/emails. I tell them that I put them on my list of companies never to do business with. On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mel Beckman
That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products? -mel via cell > On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +, Mel Beckman wrote: >> Sometimes

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Chuck Anderson
I've started keeping a list of companies who make unsolicited calls/emails. I tell them that I put them on my list of companies never to do business with. On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +, Mel Beckman wrote: > > Sometimes

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Rich Kulawiec
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +, Mel Beckman wrote: > Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming. That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective gains to outweigh the

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mel Beckman
Rodney, My misunderstanding. Despite the subject line noting NANOG attendees, I interpreted your statement "It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed…” to be referring to the NANOG mailing list (“us”). I figured the spammer was signing up to the list first. As for the attendee

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Rodney Joffe
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > Rodney, > > You said "I see something every couple of months that I can track back to > NANOG, or ARIN." > > I would hardly call this a flood. But my point is that most people posting to > NANOG, being technical people,

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mel Beckman
Rodney, You said "I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or ARIN." I would hardly call this a flood. But my point is that most people posting to NANOG, being technical people, respond to notifications that they are spamming. Your example email illustrates this

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Rodney Joffe
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 9:02 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > Rodney, > > What do you suggest? Shoot them at Dawn? :-) > > The standard warning and education has always been adequate in the past. We > don't have a runaway spamming problem on the list. What standard warning and

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mel Beckman
Rodney, What do you suggest? Shoot them at Dawn? :-) The standard warning and education has always been adequate in the past. We don't have a runaway spamming problem on the list. -mel beckman > On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Rodney Joffe wrote: > > It seems that more

Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Rodney Joffe
It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern (gst...@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70. The spammer had the balls to say, in his email: > > We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to > reach out and raise awareness