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 GDPR goes into effect there will be even more available remedies.

Anne*

*Dictated due to broken wrist, please forgive top posting and any weird grammar 
or typos.

Anne P. Mitchell, 
Attorney at Law
Legislative Consultant
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Member, Colorado Cyber Committee
Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council
Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Member, Board of Directors, Greenwood Wildlife Rehabilitation
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop



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, and will start advising my peers not to do so either.'
It's very rare things ever get that far.

Just ignore it. Or if you're feeling saucy, go full on '419 Eater' on them
and burn up as much of their time as possible. I have no ethical issues
about wasting someone's time after they've been asked politely not to waste
mine.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> 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 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 wild.
> > Wait.
> >
> > In this case, the spammer was stupid enough hot only to abuse a list of
> > technical people who run networks, but to brag about it within the body
> of
> > the spam.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
> > Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
> > Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
> >
>


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: 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 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 wild.
>> Wait.
>> 
>> In this case, the spammer was stupid enough hot only to abuse a list of
>> technical people who run networks, but to brag about it within the body of
>> the spam.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
>> Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
>> Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
>> 



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 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 wild.
> Wait.
>
> In this case, the spammer was stupid enough hot only to abuse a list of
> technical people who run networks, but to brag about it within the body of
> the spam.
>
>
> --
> Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
> Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
> Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
>


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 wild. 
Wait.


In this case, the spammer was stupid enough hot only to abuse a list of 
technical people who run networks, but to brag about it within the body 
of the spam.


--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV


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 tracking them down... or seeing someone at someone in a specific 
area or...) ehh, probably not
"Targeted marketing" is spam. The NANOG attendee list is a target. 
Downtown Fallujah was a target.


As a rule, being targeted is shortly followed by being fired upon.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV


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 spamming. 


This guy definitely knew he was spamming and didn't care. "We do not 
know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG" And he 
didn't even attend, though someone from his company did.



If they're persistent they get removed from the list


This isn't about spam to this list, it's about spammers scraping the 
attendee lists and spamming them directly.



 I made my suggestion.


Shoot them at dawn? I kind of like that idea. +1.

Guillotine, however, makes heads on pikes as a deterrent less messy.


What's yours?


Name and shame. As Rodney did. Maybe seed the attendee lists with a 
spamtrap or two and publicly out the abusers on the NANOG website.


Very few of them will openly brag about spamming the list as Glenn Stern 
(gst...@calient.net) did.


--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV


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"  has to be tolerated for 
:: vendor to continue supporting NANOG. 

No, that is absolutely wrong!

:: Also relevant "spam" or sales call is a good way to find 
:: out about new technologies , that one may not have heard 
:: about otherwise. 

No, wrong again.  One of the most attractive things about 
NANOG is learning these things from **peers**, not spam.

:: Another tip, just ignore,  the "spammer" will go away 
:: eventually.  

If they're not named-n-shamed they will continue.  I have
had quite a few go after me aggressively to sell me 
something after a NANOG post.  They didn't stop until I 
named-n-shamed them.  Their supervisors wrote me, personally
apologized and, due to that, I put their companies back
on my list of companies to do business with.

I write this not just to you, but as an explanation to 
other new folks why the old schoolers name-n-shame.

scott

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 selling to spammers.


-Dan


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 the conference and
> then found their e-mail address elsewhere. I also don't think the above
> is wrong in any way and people should just get on with their lives.

When will the US get sane anti-spam laws.  No, I don't expect a answer.

That behaviour here is illegal.  Any Australian company / individual
that does this can be fined regardless of where the email is sent
from in the world or which third party they hire to do it.  If you
send to a Australian email address you can also be fined, provided
you know it is a Australian address, as you are implicitly doing
business in Australia.  Remember you are choosing to do business
with Australia when you send the email.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org


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 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 then found their 
e-mail address elsewhere. I also don't think the above is wrong in any way and 
people should just get on with their lives.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

- Original Message -

From: t...@pelican.org
To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:37:09 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.
>
>
> I doubt you can distinguish the source with any real reliability.

Depending on whether you're registered with personal or corporate email, and 
how much control you have over the platform in question, you can distinguish 
the source with fairly high reliability. Just generate a new 
'bob+nano...@bobsdomain.org' style address for every event you register for, 
every website that requires a contact address, every mailing list, ...

If you're concerned that people will twig, and use the naked 'bob@' address, 
you could work with multiple names including a hash that look like internal 
nonsense, e.g. 'bob34adf@', or block the un-plussed 'bob@' entirely and use 
e.g. 'robert@' for people you trust to have your real, 
non-circumstance-specific email address.

I know people who do this, it really depends how much you care about being able 
to trace and block people who are either scraping or re-selling your details.

Regards,
Tim.





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 then found their e-mail 
> address
> elsewhere. I also don't think the above is wrong in any way and people should 
> just
> get on with their lives.

Fair point, that's a lot harder to tie back to NANOG (although, of course, if 
you follow the scheme religiously, you *can* find out where they looked you up 
:) )

Regards,
Tim.




Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread Mike Hammett
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 then found their 
e-mail address elsewhere. I also don't think the above is wrong in any way and 
people should just get on with their lives. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: t...@pelican.org 
To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:37:09 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. 
> 
> 
> I doubt you can distinguish the source with any real reliability. 

Depending on whether you're registered with personal or corporate email, and 
how much control you have over the platform in question, you can distinguish 
the source with fairly high reliability. Just generate a new 
'bob+nano...@bobsdomain.org' style address for every event you register for, 
every website that requires a contact address, every mailing list, ... 

If you're concerned that people will twig, and use the naked 'bob@' address, 
you could work with multiple names including a hash that look like internal 
nonsense, e.g. 'bob34adf@', or block the un-plussed 'bob@' entirely and use 
e.g. 'robert@' for people you trust to have your real, 
non-circumstance-specific email address. 

I know people who do this, it really depends how much you care about being able 
to trace and block people who are either scraping or re-selling your details. 

Regards, 
Tim. 





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 on whether you're registered with personal or corporate email, and 
how much control you have over the platform in question, you can distinguish 
the source with fairly high reliability.  Just generate a new 
'bob+nano...@bobsdomain.org' style address for every event you register for, 
every website that requires a contact address, every mailing list, ...

If you're concerned that people will twig, and use the naked 'bob@' address, 
you could work with multiple names including a hash that look like internal 
nonsense, e.g. 'bob34adf@', or block the un-plussed 'bob@' entirely and use 
e.g. 'robert@' for people you trust to have your real, 
non-circumstance-specific email address.

I know people who do this, it really depends how much you care about being able 
to trace and block people who are either scraping or re-selling your details.

Regards,
Tim.




Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-20 Thread Rod Beck
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.


- R.




From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Dave 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. 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 has undertaken.
>>
>> Sponsors who have stepped on the rules have had their sponsorship rights
>> revoked - temporarily, and in egregious cases, permanently. We (the NANOG
>> organization) take this incredibly seriously.
>>
>> While it's hard to solve for the exact case above (scraping registrant
>> lists and then comparing to CRM to glean contact info) we absolutely do
>> aggressively pursue any abuse of NANOG's attendee information, trademarks,
>> and mailing list.
>>
>
> Is it too simple a solution to post a warning on the page above the
> Attendee List saying something along the lines of "scraping the Attendee
> List for marketing purposes is forbidden, will result in public shaming,
> and may cause some attendees to completely boycott your company." ?
>


This suggestion was made on the NANOG Facebook group and we will implement
it with the new website coming before NANOG 71.

-Dave


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 Maassen
> - Technical Maintenance Engineer Parkstad Support BV- Maintainer DroneBL- 
> Peplink Certified Engineer
> 
>  Oorspronkelijk bericht Van: b...@theworld.com Datum: 
> 15-06-17  20:09  (GMT+01:00) Aan: Dan Hollis  Cc: 
> Niels Bakker 

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 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?
> 
> 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 of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit 
>> Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral 
>> Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom 
>> discussions.
> 
> 



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 otherwise.  
Another tip, just ignore,  the "spammer" will go away eventually.  


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Rodney Joffe wrote:   
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 Joffe  a écrit :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> 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 of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit 
>>> Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral 
>>> Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom 
>>> discussions.
>> 
>> 
>   


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 bericht Van: b...@theworld.com Datum: 15-06-17  
20:09  (GMT+01:00) Aan: Dan Hollis  Cc: Niels Bakker 

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 suffice.
 > 
 > Most spam is sent from compromised machines anyway, so there are already 
 > criminal violations involved in sending spam.

FWIW I believe the context was a vendor spamming NANOG attendees (see
the Subject:) so not likely being done from compromised machines.

That said, yes, a lot of spam is sent from compromised machines as you
say.

But criminal violations can be additive, even rising to things like
RICO charges (a pattern of organized criminal behavior etc.) which can
be both criminal and civil and added onto charges like the criminality
of specific mechanisms (compromised systems etc.)

It really depends on how interested one can get the legal machinery in
the problem. Thus far that's hit or miss. I can't find any instance
where RICO charges were used against a spam gang tho, at least on a
quick search.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*


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 by another person, 
> without the authorization of such person; and
> 

Unfortunately, the actual language of that provision requires that the website 
from which it was scraped must also include a notice stating that the website 
will not "give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by such 
website".

Here is the actual language:

"(i) the electronic mail address of the recipient was
obtained using an automated means from an Internet
website or proprietary online service operated by
another person, and such website or online service
included, at the time the address was obtained, a notice
stating that the operator of such website or online service
will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer
addresses maintained by such website or online service
to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or
enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages;"

It would be interesting* if people had language printed right on their business 
cards along the lines of:

"The presence of my email address on this card does not constitute permission 
for you to email me absent a prior agreement, or to put my email address on a 
mailing list."

*And by interesting, I mean legally interesting. ;-)

Anne*

*Dictated due to broken wrist, please forgive top-posting and any weird grammar 
or typos

Anne P. Mitchell, 
Attorney at Law
Legislative Consultant
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Member, Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Member, Colorado Cyber Committee
Member, Elevations Credit Union Member Council
Member, Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Member, Board of Directors, Greenwood Wildlife Rehabilitation
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop




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 
criminal violations involved in sending spam.


-Dan


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 helps fund not only the program, but the numerous
>> other outreach programs that NANOG has undertaken.
>>
>> Sponsors who have stepped on the rules have had their sponsorship rights
>> revoked - temporarily, and in egregious cases, permanently. We (the NANOG
>> organization) take this incredibly seriously.
>>
>> While it's hard to solve for the exact case above (scraping registrant
>> lists and then comparing to CRM to glean contact info) we absolutely do
>> aggressively pursue any abuse of NANOG's attendee information, trademarks,
>> and mailing list.
>>
>
> Is it too simple a solution to post a warning on the page above the
> Attendee List saying something along the lines of "scraping the Attendee
> List for marketing purposes is forbidden, will result in public shaming,
> and may cause some attendees to completely boycott your company." ?
>


This suggestion was made on the NANOG Facebook group and we will implement
it with the new website coming before NANOG 71.

-Dave


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 has undertaken.

Sponsors who have stepped on the rules have had their sponsorship rights
revoked - temporarily, and in egregious cases, permanently. We (the NANOG
organization) take this incredibly seriously.

While it's hard to solve for the exact case above (scraping registrant
lists and then comparing to CRM to glean contact info) we absolutely do
aggressively pursue any abuse of NANOG's attendee information, trademarks,
and mailing list.


Is it too simple a solution to post a warning on the page above the 
Attendee List saying something along the lines of "scraping the Attendee 
List for marketing purposes is forbidden, will result in public shaming, 
and may cause some attendees to completely boycott your company." ?


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_


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
> > show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
>
> traditional community attitudes left the building long ago.  nanog has
> become a trade show, for which this is normal behavior.  i expect mail
> "stop by our booth at nanog 42," and so forth.



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 has undertaken.

Sponsors who have stepped on the rules have had their sponsorship rights
revoked - temporarily, and in egregious cases, permanently. We (the NANOG
organization) take this incredibly seriously.

While it's hard to solve for the exact case above (scraping registrant
lists and then comparing to CRM to glean contact info) we absolutely do
aggressively pursue any abuse of NANOG's attendee information, trademarks,
and mailing list.

-Dave Temkin
Chair, NANOG Board of Directors


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 spamming is so low that even yielding zero clients isn't much
of a loss. And if just one person finds the tease interesting it's a
big win for the vendor.

So there's a huge scaling advantage with spam, always has been.

It's more akin to someone going thru your neighborhood with a vehicle
with a bullhorn at 3AM suggesting some product.

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.

Another problem is that even with zero direct returns the sender gets
other value.

The usual rule of thumb used to be that you had to see an ad about
eight times before your were likely to remember the product. So, spam,
7 more times.

And branding.

You goog for a particular type of router or whatever and you're hit
with several that seem like they'd do the job.

But you don't recognize the vendor names which makes you
uneasy...except that one, hmm, that's a familiar name...not sure
why...ok let's give them a closer look...

They're getting value even if not immediately obvious. And you'll
probably forget they spammed you long before you stop recognizing
their name as familiar.

The point is why should they get all that value for just about free?

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*


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 harvesting and dictionary attacks".

When reviewing it, make sure to read the whole thing.  Including the
part where it doesn't prohibit those things (harvesting and dictionary
attacks), but, instead, declares that those things are aggravating
factors if done my someone as part of doing things that are prohibited
by the section that actually prohibits things, which is 7704(a).

 -- Brett


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 to harvested emails
>is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that?

This is law, not software.  If a bunch of people who went to a trade
show get spam to the addresses they used when they registered, well,
duh.

R's,
John


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 website,
> proprietary service, or other online public forum operated by another
> person, without the authorization of such person; and
> 
> (II) randomly generating electronic mail addresses by computer;
> 
> Technically, this spammer harvested the names of attendees at a
> physical conference, not of some online resource, which is what
> CAN-SPAM prohibits.  I know it's splitting hairs, but that's what
> spammers do.

There is no such specific prohibition in CAN-SPAM.

The section of CAN SPAN from which you are quoting (15 USC 7703)
instructs the Sentencing Commission to consider sentence enhancements
for criminals convicted under existing computer crimes laws if they did
one of the two things you list above.

The part you left out (and which immediately precedes the part you
quoted) reads:

(2) In carrying out this subsection, the Sentencing
Commission shall consider providing sentencing enhancements for—
(A) those convicted under section 1037 of title 18 who—
(i) obtained electronic mail addresses through improper means,
including—
  [ then (I) and (II) from above ]

Merely sending non-misleading spam does not violate 18 USC 1037.

> My point is that CAN-SPAM is virtually useless. There have been a
> handful of prosecutions in more than a decade, and spammers are not
> seeming to be deterred.
> 
> I know there are honeypots that try to catch electronic harvesters,
> but I don't think they could provide proof of someone who got his
> emails from a list of attendees at an event, a shared customer list,
> etc.

And even if someone did, no crime is committed.

But if someone uses those addresses in the commission of another crime,
he might go to prison for longer.

 -- Brett


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 Joffe  a écrit :
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> 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 of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit 
>>> Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral 
>>> Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom 
>>> discussions.
>> 
>> 
> 


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 
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 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?

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 of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the 
data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been 
active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.





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 another person, without the 
authorization of such person; and

(II) randomly generating electronic mail addresses by computer;

Technically, this spammer harvested the names of attendees at a physical 
conference, not of some online resource, which is what CAN-SPAM prohibits. I 
know it's splitting hairs, but that's what spammers do.

My point is that CAN-SPAM is virtually useless. There have been a handful of 
prosecutions in more than a decade, and spammers are not seeming to be deterred.

I know there are honeypots that try to catch electronic harvesters, but I don't 
think they could provide proof of someone who got his emails from a list of 
attendees at an event, a shared customer list, etc.

 -mel

On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:26 AM, Rodney Joffe 
> wrote:



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?

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 of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the 
data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been 
active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.




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?

 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 of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit 
> Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral 
> Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.




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 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 the building long ago.  nanog has
> become a trade show, for which this is normal behavior.  i expect mail
> "stop by our booth at nanog 42," and so forth.
> 
> randy


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 punishment squad.
That's the only place it hurts them and if made public it's
even more effective.


:: And your proposed solution is?

Let the naming-n-shaming continue, rather than supporting the
slimy spammer's position!  There's not a naming-n-shaming
problem here, either.


:: Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products?

No, we will do that ourselves.


scott

ps.  I feel like I'm in a different universe when NANOG folks 
are supporting the spammer's side on the list!


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 the building long ago.  nanog has
become a trade show, for which this is normal behavior.  i expect mail
"stop by our booth at nanog 42," and so forth.

randy


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.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003 

While this is not US law, the act of harvesting addresses is illegal
under the Australian anti-spam act
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00614

Mark
 
> -mel via cell
>
> > On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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 content (except
> sexually
> >> explicit), as long as they don't use misleading headers, deceptive
> >> subject lines, or obscure the fact that the email is an ad. Those
> >> features, plus clear identification of the originator and an opt-out
> >> mechanism, let anyone send unlimited spam.
> >
> > The act of harvesting the email addresses is illegal which makes
> > the subsequent emails illegal even if they meet all the other
> > requirements of the CAN-SPAM act.
> >
> >> So, in reality, these so-called NANOG spammers are within the law. We
> >> just don't like what they're doing.
> >>
> >> We definitely can't sue them as you advise. In fact, individual CANT
> use
> >> under CAN-SPAM. Only we network operators can.
> >>
> >> Thanks for nothing, Congress.
> >
> > As someone with stonger local anti-spam legislation that has to put
> > up with the spam from US sources I have to agree.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >> -mel via cell
> >>
> >>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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.  Really if you don't want the list to be harvested,
> >>> which is illegal under the act, bring the action.  Opt out doesn't
> >>> save the sender if they have already committed a illegal act.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>>
>  -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 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 prospective losses.  If they're right, then
> the
> > spamming will not only continue, it will increase.  (As we've seen:
> > over and over and over again.)  That's because they don't care about
> > being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about
>  profits.
> >
> > So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I
> > may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is
> absolutely
> > unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing
> >> negative
> > financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates
> > indefinitely.
> >
> >  If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and
> >  you take no action except to continue giving them the means to
> >  hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you,
> >  then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't
> >  scaling well".
> >  --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
> >
> > ---rsk
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Mark Andrews, ISC
> >>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> >>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
> >
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org


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 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
>> subject lines, or obscure the fact that the email is an ad. Those
>> features, plus clear identification of the originator and an opt-out
>> mechanism, let anyone send unlimited spam.
> 
> The act of harvesting the email addresses is illegal which makes
> the subsequent emails illegal even if they meet all the other
> requirements of the CAN-SPAM act.
> 
>> So, in reality, these so-called NANOG spammers are within the law. We
>> just don't like what they're doing.
>> 
>> We definitely can't sue them as you advise. In fact, individual CANT use
>> under CAN-SPAM. Only we network operators can.
>> 
>> Thanks for nothing, Congress.
> 
> As someone with stonger local anti-spam legislation that has to put
> up with the spam from US sources I have to agree.
> 
> Mark
> 
>> -mel via cell
>> 
>>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.  Really if you don't want the list to be harvested,
>>> which is illegal under the act, bring the action.  Opt out doesn't
>>> save the sender if they have already committed a illegal act.
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
 -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 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 prospective losses.  If they're right, then the
> spamming will not only continue, it will increase.  (As we've seen:
> over and over and over again.)  That's because they don't care about
> being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about
 profits.
> 
> So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I
> may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely
> unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing
>> negative
> financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates
> indefinitely.
> 
>  If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and
>  you take no action except to continue giving them the means to
>  hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you,
>  then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't
>  scaling well".
>  --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
> 
> ---rsk
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
> 
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org


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 content (except sexually
> explicit), as long as they don't use misleading headers, deceptive
> subject lines, or obscure the fact that the email is an ad. Those
> features, plus clear identification of the originator and an opt-out
> mechanism, let anyone send unlimited spam.

The act of harvesting the email addresses is illegal which makes
the subsequent emails illegal even if they meet all the other
requirements of the CAN-SPAM act.

> So, in reality, these so-called NANOG spammers are within the law. We
> just don't like what they're doing.
>
> We definitely can't sue them as you advise. In fact, individual CANT use
> under CAN-SPAM. Only we network operators can.
>
> Thanks for nothing, Congress.

As someone with stonger local anti-spam legislation that has to put
up with the spam from US sources I have to agree.

Mark

> -mel via cell
>
> > On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.  Really if you don't want the list to be harvested,
> > which is illegal under the act, bring the action.  Opt out doesn't
> > save the sender if they have already committed a illegal act.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >> -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 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 prospective losses.  If they're right, then the
> >>> spamming will not only continue, it will increase.  (As we've seen:
> >>> over and over and over again.)  That's because they don't care about
> >>> being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about
> >> profits.
> >>>
> >>> So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I
> >>> may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely
> >>> unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing
> negative
> >>> financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates
> >>> indefinitely.
> >>>
> >>>   If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and
> >>>   you take no action except to continue giving them the means to
> >>>   hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you,
> >>>   then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't
> >>>   scaling well".
> >>>   --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
> >>>
> >>> ---rsk
> >
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org


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 subject lines, or obscure 
the fact that the email is an ad. Those features, plus clear identification of 
the originator and an opt-out mechanism, let anyone send unlimited spam. 

So, in reality, these so-called NANOG spammers are within the law. We just 
don't like what they're doing. 

We definitely can't sue them as you advise. In fact, individual CANT use under 
CAN-SPAM. Only we network operators can. 

Thanks for nothing, Congress. 

-mel via cell

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.  Really if you don't want the list to be harvested,
> which is illegal under the act, bring the action.  Opt out doesn't
> save the sender if they have already committed a illegal act.
> 
> Mark
> 
>> -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 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 prospective losses.  If they're right, then the
>>> spamming will not only continue, it will increase.  (As we've seen:
>>> over and over and over again.)  That's because they don't care about
>>> being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about
>> profits.
>>> 
>>> So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I
>>> may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely
>>> unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative
>>> financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates
>>> indefinitely.
>>> 
>>>   If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and
>>>   you take no action except to continue giving them the means to
>>>   hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you,
>>>   then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't
>>>   scaling well".
>>>   --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
>>> 
>>> ---rsk
> 
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org


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.  Really if you don't want the list to be harvested,
which is illegal under the act, bring the action.  Opt out doesn't
save the sender if they have already committed a illegal act.

Mark

> -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 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 prospective losses.  If they're right, then the
> > spamming will not only continue, it will increase.  (As we've seen:
> > over and over and over again.)  That's because they don't care about
> > being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about
> profits.
> >
> > So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I
> > may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely
> > unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative
> > financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates
> > indefinitely.
> >
> >If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and
> >you take no action except to continue giving them the means to
> >hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you,
> >then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't
> >scaling well".
> >--- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
> >
> > ---rsk

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org


Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mike Hammett
Does it fit into one of the categories I defined? 

I wasn't overly clear in the second example of the last category. Seeing 
someone working for someone that's in a specific area and then reaching out to 
them about something specific to their area... probably not. 

Further examples of yes\no for targeted marketing: Most any equipment vendor, 
unless it's quite geographically specific to someone, no, not unique enough. 
New provider, data center, IX, etc. geographically near a given company and 
they find "you" work at that company... sure, that seems like a perfectly valid 
use. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Dan Hollis" <goe...@sasami.anime.net> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: 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, probably. 
> Targeted marketing (looking for someone at Facebook, seeing someone from 
> Facebook and tracking them down... or seeing someone at someone in a specific 
> area or...) ehh, probably not 

Do you view collecting lists of nanog members and using it for 
unsolicited marketing purposes as bad or not? 

-Dan 



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 tracking them down... or seeing someone at someone in a specific 
area or...) ehh, probably not


Do you view collecting lists of nanog members and using it for 
unsolicited marketing purposes as bad or not?


-Dan



Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mike Hammett
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 tracking them down... or seeing someone at someone in a specific 
area or...) ehh, probably not 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Rich Kulawiec" <r...@gsp.org> 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, June 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 there's a mechanism to do that. (Please correct me 
if I'm wrong.) However, I think it's feasible to construct a 
list and make it publicly available so that folks can consult it 
before making purchase decisions. 

---rsk 




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 feasible to construct a
list and make it publicly available so that folks can consult it
before making purchase decisions.

---rsk



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 
> > 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 01:02:12PM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Overreact much? 



Mike -- I suspect he *under*Reacts.

I go so far as giving out unique e-mail whenever possible so that I can
track the origin of scraped addresses...

*And* I remind sales folks (and their bosses) why I won't buy from them.

I guess they should be happy that I don't sign a lot of orders
anymore...  :-)


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 the "omg evil politicans voted to rollback fcc privacy rules 
> and let companies sell your data" derpy derp thread.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> -Dan


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 both ways.

-Dan


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 will increase.  (As we've seen:
> over and over and over again.)  That's because they don't care about
> being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits.

Isn't that why we all work in this industry? Sure it's fun, but at the end of
month it's that sizable deposit in our checking (or chequeing) accounts.

> So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I
> may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely
> unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative
> financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates
> indefinitely.
> 
>   If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and
>   you take no action except to continue giving them the means to
>   hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you,
>   then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't
>   scaling well".
>   --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG

It's vendor spam.  It's annoying, but it's not life or death.  Educate/shame,
and move on.  When it happens the second time, then get your pitchforks and
rifles out :)

how I feel about it:
https://i.imgur.com/v7SJdmq.png

-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net


Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

2017-06-13 Thread Mike Hammett
Overreact much? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

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 
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 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 prospective losses. If they're 
right, then the > spamming will not only continue, it will increase. 
(As we've seen: > over and over and over again.) That's because they 
don't care about > being professional or responsible or ethical: they 
only care about profits. > > So the choice is clear: either make it 
plain to such "people" (if I > may dignify sociopathic filth with that 
term) that this is absolutely > unacceptable and that it will have 
serious, immediate, ongoing negative > financial consequences, or do 
nothing while the problem escalates > indefinitely. > > If you give 
people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and > you take no action 
except to continue giving them the means to > hurt you, and they take 
no action except to keep hurting you, > then one of the ways you can 
describe the situation is "it isn't > scaling well". > --- Paul 
Vixie, on NANOG > > ---rsk 



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 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 prospective losses.  If they're right, then the
> spamming will not only continue, it will increase.  (As we've seen:
> over and over and over again.)  That's because they don't care about
> being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits.
> 
> So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I
> may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely
> unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative
> financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates
> indefinitely.
> 
>If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and
>you take no action except to continue giving them the means to
>hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you,
>then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't
>scaling well".
>--- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
> 
> ---rsk


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 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 prospective losses.  If they're
right, then the > spamming will not only continue, it will increase.
(As we've seen: > over and over and over again.)  That's because they
don't care about > being professional or responsible or ethical: they
only care about profits.  > > So the choice is clear: either make it
plain to such "people" (if I > may dignify sociopathic filth with that
term) that this is absolutely > unacceptable and that it will have
serious, immediate, ongoing negative > financial consequences, or do
nothing while the problem escalates > indefinitely.  > > If you give
people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and > you take no action
except to continue giving them the means to > hurt you, and they take
no action except to keep hurting you, > then one of the ways you can
describe the situation is "it isn't > scaling well".  > --- Paul
Vixie, on NANOG > > ---rsk


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 prospective losses.  If they're right, then the
spamming will not only continue, it will increase.  (As we've seen:
over and over and over again.)  That's because they don't care about
being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits.

So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I
may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely
unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative
financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates
indefinitely.

If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and
you take no action except to continue giving them the means to
hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you,
then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't
scaling well".
--- Paul Vixie, on NANOG

---rsk


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 list, short of making it secret I’m (which would be 
counterproductive), I think we just have to live with it (I did not attend this 
year, and thus didn’t get spammed).

 -mel


On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:57 AM, Rodney Joffe 
> wrote:


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, respond to notifications that they are spamming. 
Your example email illustrates this perfectly. Sometimes they're ignorant and 
don't realize they're spamming. If they're persistent they get removed from the 
list (I don't think that has had to happen for several years).

The remaining spammers are easily caught by filters, as you can plainly see.

I don't see your need for urgency, and you still haven't said what you propose 
as a better arrangement. I made my suggestion. What's yours?

I'm one of 10,000. I assume others see as many as I do (I have no idea how many 
get caught in my filters).

I don't recall calling this a flood. Did I? And I don't believe he is on the 
list so there's no way to "remove" him.  I think the list does a good job over 
time "training" subscribers.

But I did say that if others don't respond to spammers to this list from 
vendors, it will become a problem. The list is fertile ground. And I'm not sure 
that Sterns response indicates any awareness. He admitted he used the 1,300 
person attendee list as a prospecting tool.

So all that I am suggesting is that others take the time to respond to spam 
from vendors (as I did) rather than ignoring it (just hitting delete doesn't 
work out in the long run). I have to assume that after a reasonable number of 
people do complain to his company, they'll learn. And others on the list who 
are tempted, change their minds.  I don't think the list itself per se suffers 
from a spam problem - although my 3 emails probably qualify as too much noise 
already. But it is vendors who use the list to prospect who should be 
discouraged.

Btw I have no doubt that rogue salesmen from my companies over the years have 
tried it once. When I find out about it, I do kick butts.

I'm hoping that this discussion is enough to get Calient to rethink their 
strategy.  For crying out loud, the guy is a VP in their company. What kind of 
example is that?

I'll end my public noise here :-)

Rodney





-mel

On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:19 AM, Rodney Joffe 
> wrote:


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 education?

We have filters to stop spam making it to the list.

But there is definitely a spamming problem of sorts amongst vendors, to 
subscriber addresses.

I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or ARIN.

What I *know* is that if you open the door, and ignore it with vendors on 
NANOG, the list members will end up having a problem. If you want to know why I 
consider myself an expert, feel free to ask me offline about what the attitude 
that those of us who ran "the backbone" in 1994 had - and how that worked out.

On the other hand, as a senior citizen, at the end of my tech days, with enable 
grudgingly given up, I guess I could turn away and say "not my problem, really".

YMMV.

-mel beckman

On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Rodney Joffe 
> 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.

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 of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the 
data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been 
active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.

He does not show as an attendee at NANOG, but another executive, David 
Altstaetter, daltstaet...@calient.net did 
register, and may have even shown up. Hopefully those of you who have 
traditional community attitudes will show your reaction via your pocketbooks.

Maybe its time for the NANOG board and staff to step in, and 

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, respond to notifications that they are 
> spamming. Your example email illustrates this perfectly. Sometimes they're 
> ignorant and don't realize they're spamming. If they're persistent they get 
> removed from the list (I don't think that has had to happen for several 
> years).
> 
> The remaining spammers are easily caught by filters, as you can plainly see.
> 
> I don't see your need for urgency, and you still haven't said what you 
> propose as a better arrangement. I made my suggestion. What's yours?

I'm one of 10,000. I assume others see as many as I do (I have no idea how many 
get caught in my filters).

I don't recall calling this a flood. Did I? And I don't believe he is on the 
list so there's no way to "remove" him.  I think the list does a good job over 
time "training" subscribers. 

But I did say that if others don't respond to spammers to this list from 
vendors, it will become a problem. The list is fertile ground. And I'm not sure 
that Sterns response indicates any awareness. He admitted he used the 1,300 
person attendee list as a prospecting tool. 

So all that I am suggesting is that others take the time to respond to spam 
from vendors (as I did) rather than ignoring it (just hitting delete doesn't 
work out in the long run). I have to assume that after a reasonable number of 
people do complain to his company, they'll learn. And others on the list who 
are tempted, change their minds.  I don't think the list itself per se suffers 
from a spam problem - although my 3 emails probably qualify as too much noise 
already. But it is vendors who use the list to prospect who should be 
discouraged.

Btw I have no doubt that rogue salesmen from my companies over the years have 
tried it once. When I find out about it, I do kick butts.

I'm hoping that this discussion is enough to get Calient to rethink their 
strategy.  For crying out loud, the guy is a VP in their company. What kind of 
example is that?

I'll end my public noise here :-)

Rodney




> 
> -mel 
> 
>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:19 AM, Rodney Joffe  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 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 education?
>> 
>> We have filters to stop spam making it to the list.
>> 
>> But there is definitely a spamming problem of sorts amongst vendors, to 
>> subscriber addresses. 
>> 
>> I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or 
>> ARIN.
>> 
>> What I *know* is that if you open the door, and ignore it with vendors on 
>> NANOG, the list members will end up having a problem. If you want to know 
>> why I consider myself an expert, feel free to ask me offline about what the 
>> attitude that those of us who ran "the backbone" in 1994 had - and how that 
>> worked out.
>> 
>> On the other hand, as a senior citizen, at the end of my tech days, with 
>> enable grudgingly given up, I guess I could turn away and say "not my 
>> problem, really".
>> 
>> YMMV.
>>> 
>>> -mel beckman
>>> 
 On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Rodney Joffe  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.
 
 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 of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit 
> Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral 
> Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
 
 He does not show as an attendee at NANOG, but another executive, David 
 Altstaetter, daltstaet...@calient.net did register, and may have even 
 shown up. Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes 
 will show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
 
 Maybe its time for the NANOG board and staff to step in, and develop some 
 teeth to use in cases like these? Unless the majority of you members are 
 cool with unfettered spamming of member and attendee lists. In which case, 
 have at it!
 
 Rodney
>> 



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 perfectly. Sometimes they're ignorant and 
don't realize they're spamming. If they're persistent they get removed from the 
list (I don't think that has had to happen for several years).

The remaining spammers are easily caught by filters, as you can plainly see.

I don't see your need for urgency, and you still haven't said what you propose 
as a better arrangement. I made my suggestion. What's yours?

 -mel 

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:19 AM, Rodney Joffe  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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 education?
> 
> We have filters to stop spam making it to the list.
> 
> But there is definitely a spamming problem of sorts amongst vendors, to 
> subscriber addresses. 
> 
> I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or 
> ARIN.
> 
> What I *know* is that if you open the door, and ignore it with vendors on 
> NANOG, the list members will end up having a problem. If you want to know why 
> I consider myself an expert, feel free to ask me offline about what the 
> attitude that those of us who ran "the backbone" in 1994 had - and how that 
> worked out.
> 
> On the other hand, as a senior citizen, at the end of my tech days, with 
> enable grudgingly given up, I guess I could turn away and say "not my 
> problem, really".
> 
> YMMV.
>> 
>> -mel beckman
>> 
>>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Rodney Joffe  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.
>>> 
>>> 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 of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit 
 Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel 
 where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
>>> 
>>> He does not show as an attendee at NANOG, but another executive, David 
>>> Altstaetter, daltstaet...@calient.net did register, and may have even shown 
>>> up. Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will 
>>> show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
>>> 
>>> Maybe its time for the NANOG board and staff to step in, and develop some 
>>> teeth to use in cases like these? Unless the majority of you members are 
>>> cool with unfettered spamming of member and attendee lists. In which case, 
>>> have at it!
>>> 
>>> Rodney
> 


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 education?

We have filters to stop spam making it to the list.

But there is definitely a spamming problem of sorts amongst vendors, to 
subscriber addresses. 

I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or ARIN.

What I *know* is that if you open the door, and ignore it with vendors on 
NANOG, the list members will end up having a problem. If you want to know why I 
consider myself an expert, feel free to ask me offline about what the attitude 
that those of us who ran "the backbone" in 1994 had - and how that worked out.

On the other hand, as a senior citizen, at the end of my tech days, with enable 
grudgingly given up, I guess I could turn away and say "not my problem, really".

YMMV.
> 
> -mel beckman
> 
>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Rodney Joffe  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.
>> 
>> 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 of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit 
>>> Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel 
>>> where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
>> 
>> He does not show as an attendee at NANOG, but another executive, David 
>> Altstaetter, daltstaet...@calient.net did register, and may have even shown 
>> up. Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will 
>> show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
>> 
>> Maybe its time for the NANOG board and staff to step in, and develop some 
>> teeth to use in cases like these? Unless the majority of you members are 
>> cool with unfettered spamming of member and attendee lists. In which case, 
>> have at it!
>> 
>> Rodney
>> 



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 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 of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit 
>> Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel 
>> where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
> 
> He does not show as an attendee at NANOG, but another executive, David 
> Altstaetter, daltstaet...@calient.net did register, and may have even shown 
> up. Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will show 
> your reaction via your pocketbooks.
> 
> Maybe its time for the NANOG board and staff to step in, and develop some 
> teeth to use in cases like these? Unless the majority of you members are cool 
> with unfettered spamming of member and attendee lists. In which case, have at 
> it!
> 
> Rodney
>