Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:19:00AM -0700, George Herbert wrote:
> These guys are in violation of CAN-SPAM.

They're also in violation of the DMCA itself.  17 USC 512 includes
this requirement for those filing DMCA notifications:

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is
accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining
party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive
right that is allegedly infringed.

(See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 for full text.)

It's obvious from the comments in this thread there are no attempts
whatsoever to ensure that the information in these notifications
is accurate, that they're sending these notifications to operations
under the jurisdiction of US law, and that they're sending them
to the relevant/correct operations.

---rsk

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Christopher Morrow]

pretty certain that the list ought not be pushing for bodily harm to
individuals...
it's fair to say: "trash all their mail" or "block their mailservers
at the edge"

but calling out hits .. not cool.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Kirch  wrote:
> Minimal? Probably 22LR.  I prefer 458SOCOM though.  As Bob Evans notes,
> there may be some waiting periods, serial numbers, and background checks
> involved.  :)
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>
>> >> http://www.procmail.org/
>> > I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach.  There is no
>> > obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet
>> > services to them, including SMTP services.
>>
>> computers are cheap.  my time is finite and i value it highly.  what is
>> the minimal action i can take to see that idiots do not take my time?
>>
>> randy
>>

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Andrew Kirch]

Minimal? Probably 22LR.  I prefer 458SOCOM though.  As Bob Evans notes,
there may be some waiting periods, serial numbers, and background checks
involved.  :)

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> >> http://www.procmail.org/
> > I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach.  There is no
> > obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet
> > services to them, including SMTP services.
>
> computers are cheap.  my time is finite and i value it highly.  what is
> the minimal action i can take to see that idiots do not take my time?
>
> randy
>

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Matthias Leisi]

> 
> Am 14.10.2015 um 18:49 schrieb Christopher Morrow :
> 
> looks like ip-echelon's MX's are:
> 67.43.171.100 - 67.43.171.96/27
> 67.43.165.163 - 67.43.165.160/27
> 203.122.134.3 - 122-134-3.dsl.connexus.net.au. ?

In or near these ranges, I see

67.43.171.121 (monthly magnitude 5.5)
67.43.165.164 (same monthly magnitude)

These two IPs also have roughly equivalent magnitude histories over the past 
six months. (Magnitude: mag 10 = „all email in the world as observed in this 
particular system“, magnitude 5.5 is already pretty big, but may be vastly 
different depending on the recipient)

— Matthias



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Mike Hammett]

Some people here just strive to be dicks... 




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



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "George Herbert"  
To: "Randy Bush"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" , "Rich 
Kulawiec"  
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:19:00 PM 
Subject: Re: IP-Echelon Compliance 


You guys aren't devious enough. 

These guys are in violation of CAN-SPAM. To the tune of exceeding the statutory 
maximum $1,000,000 per ISP last *month* for some of you, much less in the 
statute of limitations period. You could probably point to refusal to remove as 
justifying the triple damages claim. 

Everyone on this list just earned your companies $3 million. 

Call your attorneys. 


George William Herbert 
Sent from my iPhone 

On Oct 14, 2015, at 5:20 AM, Randy Bush  wrote: 

>>> http://www.procmail.org/ 
>> I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach. There is no 
>> obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet 
>> services to them, including SMTP services. 
> 
> computers are cheap. my time is finite and i value it highly. what is 
> the minimal action i can take to see that idiots do not take my time? 
> 
> randy 

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[George Herbert]

You guys aren't devious enough.

These guys are in violation of CAN-SPAM.  To the tune of exceeding the 
statutory maximum $1,000,000 per ISP last *month* for some of you, much less in 
the statute of limitations period.  You could probably point to refusal to 
remove as justifying the triple damages claim.

Everyone on this list just earned your companies $3 million.

Call your attorneys.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 14, 2015, at 5:20 AM, Randy Bush  wrote:

>>> http://www.procmail.org/
>> I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach.  There is no
>> obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet
>> services to them, including SMTP services.
> 
> computers are cheap.  my time is finite and i value it highly.  what is
> the minimal action i can take to see that idiots do not take my time?
> 
> randy

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Christopher Morrow]

looks like ip-echelon's MX's are:
67.43.171.100 - 67.43.171.96/27
67.43.165.163 - 67.43.165.160/27
203.122.134.3 - 122-134-3.dsl.connexus.net.au. ?

you could presumably just iptables away (or postfix reject) from
those, and then there's this:

;; ANSWER SECTION:
ip-echelon.com. 300 IN  TXT "v=spf1
include:mailgun.org ~all"
ip-echelon.com. 300 IN  TXT "v=spf1
include:mail.zendesk.com ?all"
ip-echelon.com. 300 IN  TXT "v=spf1
ptr:ip-echelon.com ip4:67.43.171.96/27 ip4:67.43.165.160/27
ip4:203.122.134.0/28 include:_spf.google.com ~all"
ip-echelon.com. 300 IN  TXT "MS=ms85153493"

joy. messy :(


On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM,   wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:20:39 +0200, Randy Bush said:
>> >> http://www.procmail.org/
>> > I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach.  There is no
>> > obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet
>> > services to them, including SMTP services.
>>
>> computers are cheap.  my time is finite and i value it highly.  what is
>> the minimal action i can take to see that idiots do not take my time?
>
> I suppose it would be bad form to suggest hiring somebody from  favorite
> crime cartel> with a Louisville Slugger to perform percussive maintenance on
> the offending party?
>

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:20:39 +0200, Randy Bush said:
> >> http://www.procmail.org/
> > I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach.  There is no
> > obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet
> > services to them, including SMTP services.
>
> computers are cheap.  my time is finite and i value it highly.  what is
> the minimal action i can take to see that idiots do not take my time?

I suppose it would be bad form to suggest hiring somebody from  with a Louisville Slugger to perform percussive maintenance on
the offending party?



pgpJJTA8UF7Sr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Randy Bush]

>> http://www.procmail.org/
> I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach.  There is no
> obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet
> services to them, including SMTP services.

computers are cheap.  my time is finite and i value it highly.  what is
the minimal action i can take to see that idiots do not take my time?

randy

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Stephen Satchell]

On 10/14/2015 03:37 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:12:29PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:

jeezus folk!

http://www.procmail.org/


I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach.  There is no obligation
for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet services to them,
including SMTP services.  A much better move would be to identify the
network block emitting this abuse and block/drop all packets from it at
the perimeter of the network or in the firewall(s).  After all, spammers
frequently engage in other forms of abuse, so it would probably be best
to simply remove them from your view of the Internet.

---rsk



+1 -- I've taken the approach in my edge network to block spammers and 
SSH abusers completely, on the theory that people will have multiple bad 
habits.  I collect between 1000 and 2000 spam messages during each 
cycle, then add the worst offenders to my netblocks.  I don't recommend 
this approach for services that have a number of different customers; 
for enterprise networks, though, judicious use of ACLs can relieve a lot 
of headaches and clogging traffic.


Running multiple mail servers, one for incoming sales and one for 
general use, lets you tailor the blocks so that relatively few people 
have to deal with the sludge.

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:12:29PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
> jeezus folk!
> 
> http://www.procmail.org/

I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach.  There is no obligation
for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet services to them,
including SMTP services.  A much better move would be to identify the
network block emitting this abuse and block/drop all packets from it at
the perimeter of the network or in the firewall(s).  After all, spammers
frequently engage in other forms of abuse, so it would probably be best
to simply remove them from your view of the Internet.

---rsk

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Randy Bush]

jeezus folk!

http://www.procmail.org/

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Tony Wicks]

> While you are at it you might want to stop sending DMCA notices to Canadian
> ISPs. The DMCA does not apply in Canada. If your clients wish to litigate 
> against
> individual residential customers in Canada, you will first need to obtain a 
> court
> order requiring handover of data, on a case-by-case basis.

Well said, the 500 or so a day that get filtered into my deleted items folder 
are mildly annoying, and all our IP ranges are APNIC (not America!). DCMA does 
not extend outside of the USA, no matter how much spam you send. If you want 
someone to do something that applies to other countries spend some time 
bothering to find out what the relevant laws are in those countries.

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Eric Kuhnke]

While you are at it you might want to stop sending DMCA notices to Canadian
ISPs. The DMCA does not apply in Canada. If your clients wish to litigate
against individual residential customers in Canada, you will first need to
obtain a court order requiring handover of data, on a case-by-case basis.

Just because the IP blocks in question are in ARIN space does not mean they
are subject to the DMCA.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/tech-news/court-tells-teksavvy-to-reveal-customers-who-illegally-download-movies/article17025513/



On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:52 AM,  wrote:

> Hi Fred,
>
> I can’t find your name, email address or the domain-name from your email
> in our mailboxes.
>
> If you send the request via this webform or via email to the address
> specified in the notice, we’ll absolutely jump on it and respond ASAP.
>
> I can’t monitor this thread further but please reach out via the channels
> described so we can help.
>
> Cheers,
> Seth
>
> > On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:10 AM, Fred Hollis  wrote:
> >
> > At least, we tried contacting you many times, but you ignored all our
> requests.
> >
> > Still receiving thousands of e-mails not related to our IPs on daily
> basis.
> >
> >> On 13.10.2015 at 00:04 Seth Arnold wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
> >>
> >> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice
> Recipient Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
> >> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ <
> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/>
> >>
> >> If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is
> reflected in the records of the US Copyright Office:
> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html <
> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Seth
> >>
>

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Scott Weeks]

--- s...@ip-echelon.com wrote:

If you send the request via this webform or via 
email to the address specified in the notice...
---


Maybe I'm cynical, but...  :-)

That's one good way to assure your email spam
list is of a higher quality.  Turn your automated 
spam cannon directly at network engineers, rather 
than to a whois email address.  Shortcuts and all 
that...

scott

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Christopher Morrow]

I'm still.amazed that my name servers are performing bit torrent...
According to ip-echelon.
On Oct 13, 2015 12:14 PM, "Matthew Black"  wrote:

> As a recipient of their stuff, it would be nice if IP Echelon even
> followed the information registered with the US Copyright Office for such
> notices. We paid $80 to let everyone know where notices should be sent.
>
> matthew black
> First Amendment: speaking for myself and not my employer!
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Seth Arnold
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:05 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: IP-Echelon Compliance
>
> Hi All,
>
> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
>
> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice
> Recipient Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ <
> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/>
>
> If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is reflected
> in the records of the US Copyright Office:
> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html <
> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Seth
>

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Matthew Black]

As a recipient of their stuff, it would be nice if IP Echelon even followed the 
information registered with the US Copyright Office for such notices. We paid 
$80 to let everyone know where notices should be sent.

matthew black
First Amendment: speaking for myself and not my employer!


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Seth Arnold
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:05 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

Hi All,

Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.

Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient 
Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 
<http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/>

If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is reflected in the 
records of the US Copyright Office:  
http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html 
<http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html>


Cheers,
Seth

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Peter Kristolaitis]

On 10/13/2015 11:30 AM, Bob Evans wrote:

WAIT WAIT - I know the solution to all of this.  Let's pass a law that
requires everyone to fill out a form to buy a device with a MAC address.
Make them wait 10 days to verify the buyer has never committed a digital
crime. While law enforcement puts it in a pile forms and pretends they can
verify through the process of piling and ignoring it. 10 days later, If
law enforcement doesn't call - the store can then call the buyer and tell
them they can pick up their new potential crime committing internet
device.


Background checks are great and all, but really what we need to do is 
restrict the ability of criminals to access illegal information, and we 
also need to get high-powered crime devices off of our streets.


To that end, we're currently working on drafting new legislation which 
we're calling the "Personal Access To Restricted Information Over 
Telecommunications Act" (PATRIOT Act) that will give the government the 
ability to remove illegal information from the internet, monitor global 
internet access so we can detect criminal activity, and also streamline 
the process for dealing with offenders.  In talking with our 
intelligence and police services, we've found that there are several key 
areas that can be improved to be able to deal with threats faster and 
more efficiently.  For example, "due process" is quite slow, requiring 
the gathering of something I believe is called "evidence", and we are 
currently examining ways to simply make it "process".  This will give 
our law enforcement the tools that they desperately want.


On the hardware level, we need to get rid of all devices with more than 
1 USB port.  No one other than a criminal needs more than 1 external 
hard drive.   This will inconvenience a very small number of people who 
also use USB ports for devices such as keyboards, mice and printers, but 
we commissioned a study that said the impact should be minor.  We 
recommend that those affected by this change look at alternatives such 
as "PS2".  The government computing infrastructure has been using this 
standard for several years now with great success.


Limiting USB ports on a device introduces another problem -- the "USB 
hub loophole", which we will address with future legislation. We will 
need to work with the ATF and Homeland Security to identify the best way 
to deal with this issue.  We will probably need to bring in CIA and NSA 
as well, to monitor the production and sale of these devices both abroad 
and domestically.  We are also in talks at the UN to introduce a new, 
multinational, multilateral civilian oversight committee to monitor and 
regulate the international trade of these dangerous items.  However, we 
are having difficulties getting some member states to accept the 
inspection requirements, and talks are ongoing.


Next, we're going to limit the general availability of network 
connections to no more than 32kbit/sec in either direction.  Faster 
network connections will be available, but you will have to register 
with the government and pay for a tax stamp.  This ensures that 
criminals can't misuse high-speed network connections, unless they can 
afford to pay $200.


Finally, we are going to introduce a total digital-crime-device ban to 
help tackle the problem in high-crime areas.  We are going to give 
states and municipalities the ability to make "digital-free zones" where 
the possession of digital crime devices is prohibited. This will result 
in the complete elimination of digital crimes committed in public areas 
such as schools and movie theaters, because it will be double-illegal to 
commit crimes there.

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Jason Hellenthal]

RoFLx1000 

Srysly! Cluebat who are these people again and why does anyone need them ?

#Sigh

-- 
 Jason Hellenthal
 JJH48-ARIN

On Oct 13, 2015, at 09:52, s...@ip-echelon.com wrote:

Hi Fred,

I can’t find your name, email address or the domain-name from your email in our 
mailboxes.

If you send the request via this webform or via email to the address specified 
in the notice, we’ll absolutely jump on it and respond ASAP.

I can’t monitor this thread further but please reach out via the channels 
described so we can help.

Cheers,
Seth

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:10 AM, Fred Hollis  wrote:
> 
> At least, we tried contacting you many times, but you ignored all our 
> requests.
> 
> Still receiving thousands of e-mails not related to our IPs on daily basis.
> 
>> On 13.10.2015 at 00:04 Seth Arnold wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
>> 
>> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice 
>> Recipient Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
>> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 
>> 
>> 
>> If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is reflected in 
>> the records of the US Copyright Office:  
>> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Seth
>> 

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Bob Evans]

WAIT WAIT - I know the solution to all of this.  Let's pass a law that
requires everyone to fill out a form to buy a device with a MAC address.
Make them wait 10 days to verify the buyer has never committed a digital
crime. While law enforcement puts it in a pile forms and pretends they can
verify through the process of piling and ignoring it. 10 days later, If
law enforcement doesn't call - the store can then call the buyer and tell
them they can pick up their new potential crime committing internet
device.

Oh Gee, I see here that I have been living in California too long.

Bob Evans
CTO

BTW, from this thread, I just learned that responding the way the spam
email states doesn't make it possible communicate with company personnel -
you must first fill out an application and register to communicate ? A
kind or opt-in-proof.

We get these emails 99% of the time its the same IP address subnets of
wi-fi in hotels or schools. They are always 12 hours late and often older
- days late - hotel guests customers have checked out or closed their
hacked laptop after their lunch meeting.

What's a busy hotel staff suppose to do track down a guest MAC addresses -
hire better firewall companies to block specific port traffic because of
its potential use? Thought that ol' bit-torrent stuff flips ports whenever
it needs too ?


> Hi Fred,
>
> I can’t find your name, email address or the domain-name from your email
> in our mailboxes.
>
> If you send the request via this webform or via email to the address
> specified in the notice, we’ll absolutely jump on it and respond ASAP.
>
> I can’t monitor this thread further but please reach out via the
> channels described so we can help.
>
> Cheers,
> Seth
>
>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:10 AM, Fred Hollis  wrote:
>>
>> At least, we tried contacting you many times, but you ignored all our
>> requests.
>>
>> Still receiving thousands of e-mails not related to our IPs on daily
>> basis.
>>
>>> On 13.10.2015 at 00:04 Seth Arnold wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
>>>
>>> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice
>>> Recipient Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
>>> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/
>>> 
>>>
>>> If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is
>>> reflected in the records of the US Copyright Office:
>>> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Seth
>>>
>

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:17:14AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> So even when they give an avenue to resolve the issue, people still 
> complain... *sigh* 

"Handing over more information" to unrepentant, chronic, systemic
spammers (who also happen to be engaged in massive abuse of the DMCA)
is not in any sense a "resolution".

---rsk

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 13 October 2015 at 16:17, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> So even when they give an avenue to resolve the issue, people still
> complain... *sigh*
>

IP-Echelon used a faulty automated script to harvest abuse addresses and
then expect everyone else to use a manual process to fix their errors,
including a captcha. Where do we send the bill for labour?

The ranges that we receive complaints from are totally unrelated to us.
Have never been owned by us or any entity related to us. Is not even
registred in the same country. Are not numerically close to any of our IP
ranges. The ranges usually have a valid abuse address in whois and it is
not ours. It is a bit of mystery how they came up with our abuse address.

My conclusion is that I have zero obligations to tell anyone that I
received an abuse report that is not for anything my users did. Especially
not after already contacting the sender and they continue to send wrong
reports. So I can just discard it. And with it I can discard all the
reports that _are_ for our own users, because why is it my responsibility
to write a filter? If they send me accurate information, I may want to
consider forwarding the stuff, but if they are lazy, why would I not also
choose the lazy way out?

Adding IP-Echelon to the spam filter is very easy.

Finding our ranges is extremely easy. You will find a complete list here
and many other places: https://stat.ripe.net/as60876#tabId=routing. Someone
from IP-Echelon is reading this, so go remove any prefixes not on that
list. If you do not, then you choose to be lazy and thereby choose to be
filtered as spam.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[seth]

Hi Fred,

I can’t find your name, email address or the domain-name from your email in our 
mailboxes.

If you send the request via this webform or via email to the address specified 
in the notice, we’ll absolutely jump on it and respond ASAP.

I can’t monitor this thread further but please reach out via the channels 
described so we can help.

Cheers,
Seth

> On Oct 13, 2015, at 2:10 AM, Fred Hollis  wrote:
> 
> At least, we tried contacting you many times, but you ignored all our 
> requests.
> 
> Still receiving thousands of e-mails not related to our IPs on daily basis.
> 
>> On 13.10.2015 at 00:04 Seth Arnold wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
>> 
>> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice 
>> Recipient Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
>> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 
>> 
>> 
>> If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is reflected in 
>> the records of the US Copyright Office:  
>> http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Seth
>> 

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Mike Hammett]

So even when they give an avenue to resolve the issue, people still complain... 
*sigh* 




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



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Bjørn Mork"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:03:45 AM 
Subject: Re: IP-Echelon Compliance 

Seth Arnold  writes: 

> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes. 
> 
> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient 
> Management for ISPs section of our website located here: 
> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 
> <http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/> 

Are you serious? You receive spam and then you go to a link provided by 
the spammer, entering your contact information into a web form? I don't 
think so... 

Take it with their upstream abuse contact instead. 


Bjørn 

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Fred Hollis]

At least, we tried contacting you many times, but you ignored all our 
requests.


Still receiving thousands of e-mails not related to our IPs on daily basis.

On 13.10.2015 at 00:04 Seth Arnold wrote:

Hi All,

Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.

Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient 
Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 


If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is reflected in the 
records of the US Copyright Office:  http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html 



Cheers,
Seth

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Bjørn Mork]

Seth Arnold  writes:

> Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.
>
> Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient 
> Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
> http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 
> 

Are you serious? You receive spam and then you go to a link provided by
the spammer, entering your contact information into a web form? I don't
think so...

Take it with their upstream abuse contact instead.


Bjørn

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Seth Arnold]

Hi All,

Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes.

Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient 
Management for ISPs section of our website located here:
http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ 


If you are in the U.S., please also ensure that your change is reflected in the 
records of the US Copyright Office:  
http://copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html 



Cheers,
Seth


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:
> Nothing could possibly go wrong with turning loose a poorly coded software
> tool to make automated legal threats in the most litigious nation on earth.

you'd think, but they've been doing this for nigh on 8 yrs at least at
this point.

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Eric Kuhnke]

Nothing could possibly go wrong with turning loose a poorly coded software
tool to make automated legal threats in the most litigious nation on earth.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:00:19PM +0200, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> > Do I just block them for spamming?
>
> Yes, since that's what they're doing.
>
> Consider: they're sending email.  It's unsolicited (you did not ask for
> it by confirmed/closed-loop subscription).  And it's bulk: these are not
> individual messages, they're auto-generated and primarily consist of
> identical boilerplate.  Thus, unsolicited bulk email, thus spam (since
> that's the canonical definition).
>
> ---rsk
>

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Fred Hollis]

Oh, interesting you have the same? We receive thousands of these 
complains on daily basis that are not related to any of our IPs.


Of course we contacted them... but never got a response.

On 09.10.2015 at 22:00 Baldur Norddahl wrote:

Hi

I am sure all of you know of these guys. But what do you do when they keep
spamming your abuse address with reports for illegal downloads from
IP-addresses that are in no way related to our business?

I tried contacting them. And was told repeatedly that I had to update whois
information if I want the reports to be sent to another address. How I do
that for IP-ranges that are not mine is a good question. Besides the whois
information for said IP-ranges already have valid abuse information and it
is not our email address.

Do I just block them for spamming?

Regards,

Baldur

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Matthew Black]

If the IP addresses, hostnames, or domain names are not yours, why would you 
even bother responding? IANAL, I don't think it's your responsibility to direct 
them to the correct place.

Consider an auto-responder directing them to the DMCA page of your corporate 
website.

matthew black
california state university, long beach


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Baldur Norddahl
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 1:00 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: IP-Echelon Compliance

Hi

I am sure all of you know of these guys. But what do you do when they keep
spamming your abuse address with reports for illegal downloads from
IP-addresses that are in no way related to our business?

I tried contacting them. And was told repeatedly that I had to update whois
information if I want the reports to be sent to another address. How I do
that for IP-ranges that are not mine is a good question. Besides the whois
information for said IP-ranges already have valid abuse information and it
is not our email address.

Do I just block them for spamming?

Regards,

Baldur

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:00:19PM +0200, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> Do I just block them for spamming?

Yes, since that's what they're doing.

Consider: they're sending email.  It's unsolicited (you did not ask for
it by confirmed/closed-loop subscription).  And it's bulk: these are not
individual messages, they're auto-generated and primarily consist of
identical boilerplate.  Thus, unsolicited bulk email, thus spam (since
that's the canonical definition).

---rsk

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Sean Donelan]

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Christopher Morrow wrote:

fairly certian that nothing ip-echelon sends is ever valid...
or there's enough 'clearly you are joking' mail from them that anyone
who ends up in court for 'ip echelon violations' could simply subpeona
their isp for 'other complaints from ip echelon' and show the judge:
"Clearly these folk are on the good crack, case closed due to
reasonable doubt."


procmailrc is your friend.  however far your lawyer lets you go.

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Theodore Baschak]

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
> 
> fairly certian that nothing ip-echelon sends is ever valid...
> or there's enough 'clearly you are joking' mail from them that anyone
> who ends up in court for 'ip echelon violations' could simply subpeona
> their isp for 'other complaints from ip echelon' and show the judge:
> "Clearly these folk are on the good crack, case closed due to
> reasonable doubt."

Are these the jokers that send out PGP signed antipiracy notices, but don't 
have that key available anywhere on the internet (keyserver, webpage, etc) to 
validate the authenticity of their signed messages?

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Baldur Norddahl
 wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am sure all of you know of these guys. But what do you do when they keep
> spamming your abuse address with reports for illegal downloads from
> IP-addresses that are in no way related to our business?
>

fairly certian that nothing ip-echelon sends is ever valid...
or there's enough 'clearly you are joking' mail from them that anyone
who ends up in court for 'ip echelon violations' could simply subpeona
their isp for 'other complaints from ip echelon' and show the judge:
"Clearly these folk are on the good crack, case closed due to
reasonable doubt."

> I tried contacting them. And was told repeatedly that I had to update whois
> information if I want the reports to be sent to another address. How I do
> that for IP-ranges that are not mine is a good question. Besides the whois
> information for said IP-ranges already have valid abuse information and it
> is not our email address.
>
> Do I just block them for spamming?
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur

IP-Echelon Compliance

[Baldur Norddahl]

Hi

I am sure all of you know of these guys. But what do you do when they keep
spamming your abuse address with reports for illegal downloads from
IP-addresses that are in no way related to our business?

I tried contacting them. And was told repeatedly that I had to update whois
information if I want the reports to be sent to another address. How I do
that for IP-ranges that are not mine is a good question. Besides the whois
information for said IP-ranges already have valid abuse information and it
is not our email address.

Do I just block them for spamming?

Regards,

Baldur