Tim Thorpe wrote:
Seeing as this system would directly impact network operators (the NO in
naNOg) I must disagree.
Go right ahead and disagree, however:
http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html
If Merit's staff feels otherwise then I sincerely apologize and will of
course move the discussion, I will li
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:00:08 CST, Stephen Sprunk said:
> For those interested, the IRTF's ASRG is actively studying anti-spam
> techniques and I'm sure they'd be interested in hearing all of your ideas
> (after you verify they haven't been tried before).
> http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html
A
Seeing as this system would directly impact network operators (the NO in
naNOg) I must disagree.
If Merit's staff feels otherwise then I sincerely apologize and will of
course move the discussion, I will limit the out of context chatter to a
minimum however.
Tthorpe
opusnet
> -Original Mess
This topic has been consistently ruled off-topic for NANOG by Merit's staff.
Please respect those of us who don't want to hear about spam here.
For those interested, the IRTF's ASRG is actively studying anti-spam
techniques and I'm sure they'd be interested in hearing all of your ideas
(after you
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
> "Most" ISPs prohibit any type of server on a DHCP connection?
>
> Some cable providers do this due to some limitations in their network
> architecture, but I would be surprised if "most" (i.e. more than 50%) ISPs
> prohibit servers. Why do you think Dyn
I have a different idea about how spam could be dealt with, which I have yet
to see proposed or discussed on Nanog. Everything suggested is always a
technical patch trying to deal with the fact that spammers can make a lot of
money. And, regardless of the patch you apply, they will find a way
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Jon R. Kibler wrote:
> OK, I was sloppy in my wording... I should have said that we block
> published dynamic netblks, including dial, cable, xDSL, and wireless.
> That still catches something less than 5% of spam originating from DHCP
> connections.
Then it sounds like you h
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Jon R. Kibler wrote:
>
> To me, the approach you advocate is something like saying "do away with any
> centralized
> law enforcement, force everyone to carry guns, and if anyone suspects that someone
> else is committing a crime, they are obliged to shoot them." I believe tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > If we block outbound port 25 SYN packets from origin addresses in the DHCP
> > address blocks, we solve the problem for everybody.
EXACTLY correct!
>
> No...you just speed up the migration (which has already begun
Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Jon R. Kibler wrote:
> > We block known dialup netblks. Catches < 5% of spam. Why? Because the real
> > culprits are xDSL, CABLE and other systems with broadband connections. These
> > account for about 80% of the spam attempts we observe.
>
> Why don'
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Jon R. Kibler wrote:
> > DialUp Lists (DUL) dns block lists permits you to ignore e-mail from
> > many dynamic IP addresses. You can configure your mail server to do this
> > today without waiting for ISPs to do anything.
> >
> > Like most other "simple" solutions, how effecti
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:46:05 EST, Sean Donelan said:
> > What if I told you about a method to identify the type of connection for
> > every IP address in our DNS? You don't need to rely on third-party DUL
> > lists.
>
> Hmm.. color me dubious, but ke
Sean Donelan wrote:
> DialUp Lists (DUL) dns block lists permits you to ignore e-mail from
> many dynamic IP addresses. You can configure your mail server to do this
> today without waiting for ISPs to do anything.
>
> Like most other "simple" solutions, how effective is it?
We block known dialup
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:46:05 EST, Sean Donelan said:
> What if I told you about a method to identify the type of connection for
> every IP address in our DNS? You don't need to rely on third-party DUL
> lists.
Hmm.. color me dubious, but keep talking. Best bet here would probably be
some intere
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > DialUp Lists (DUL) dns block lists permits you to ignore e-mail from
> > many dynamic IP addresses. You can configure your mail server to do this
> > today without waiting for ISPs to do anything.
>
> If we advertise the DHCP pools for AS1312 in a D
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If we advertise the DHCP pools for AS1312 in a DUL, we solve the problem for
> those sites that use the DUL we list them in.
>
> If we block outbound port 25 SYN packets from origin addresses in the DHCP
> address blocks, we solve the problem for ev
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Rob Pickering wrote:
> --On 13 February 2004 09:27 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Y-Haw! A return to the Old West of bangbaths and pathalias.
> >
> > No thanks.
>
> That's absolutely the issue with emerging resignation to "e-mail
> peering" and the like being the only
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:40:40 EST, Sean Donelan said:
> DialUp Lists (DUL) dns block lists permits you to ignore e-mail from
> many dynamic IP addresses. You can configure your mail server to do this
> today without waiting for ISPs to do anything.
If we advertise the DHCP pools for AS1312 in a DU
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004, Jon R. Kibler wrote:
> We find that at least 85% of all spam originates from DHCP addresses. Thus, if
> a significant number of ISPs would perform port 25 egress filtering, I believe
> that it would significantly reduce spam, and force criminal spammers to develop
> completely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Tim Thorpe wrote:
>
> > If these exist then why are we still having problems?
>
> Because the spammers are creating proxies faster than any of the anti-spam
> people can find them. Evidence suggests, at least on the order of 10,000
> new spam pr
I just lost an upstream provider and they tell me there's a power outage in
LA - anyone have any info on that?
--
matthew zeier - "Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be
understood." - Marie Curie
SH> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:50:02 +
SH> From: Sven Huster
[ editted and reformatted for clarity ]
SH> The core sends to R1, which believes the best path is via R2
SH> and sends it back to the core as that's the only way to reach
SH> R2. Then the core again sends it to R1 and all the same
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 04:47:30AM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
>
> SH> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:00:51 +
> SH> From: Sven Huster
>
>
> SH> The thing that happend was that the core believed that the
> SH> best path out is via R1, which R1 thought it was via R2. So a
> SH> little loop there.
>
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:24:17 PST, Tim Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Getting a bit long, I like it :D.
>
> What would be a netops general response to scans of this nature?
What's *your* netop's response to all the idiot-with-firewalls replies to your scan?
Then go and read http://www.via
24 matches
Mail list logo
