Not a new problem.
I got my first Nigerian Scam Deaf Relay Call last May, on my cell phone.
I had to listen to them for a minute or two to make sure it wasn't
one of my European customers having a network problem,
but it was somebody who said they wanted to discuss a business opportunity -
on Su
On 12-apr-04, at 5:06, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
The local telco doesn't see a red cent of any settlement charges when
this happens.
We all feel very sorry for them, I'm sure.
Local telcos are, of course, all against this, and use
any and every excuse to get these exchanges busted - a procedure that
[4/12/2004 1:33 PM] Iljitsch van Beijnum :
Wow, VoIP+sat+GSM, that must add up to close to 1500 ms delay! That
can't be any fun.
Well, there was a nanog thread some days back about voip over sat.
People do it all the time (alaskan mining camps for example).
Voice quality is horrendous, there i
Agobot scanning...
Take a look at these links:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2004-04-05
http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2004-04-01
http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2004-04-09
Also, take a read through the "New Worm???" thread at:
http://www.dshield.org/pipermail/intrusions/2004-April/
On 2004-04-11T21:41-0400, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
) So what will we have to deal with if we did discontinue those addresses for all but 1
) of our domains.
Well, having all but the one domain listed in rfc-ignorant.org's blacklist,
for one.
Do you mind sharing your list of domains to help expedit
If there is somebody from Cisco on this list who has been accessing
completewhois port 43 whois service with thousands of consequitive queries
for last few days (or possibly somebody else from cisco who can lookup in
your gateway/firewall logs to see it was) then please contact me for
privat
Two (possibly related?) phenomena:
1. Nothing from NANOG since yesterday.
2. .org TLD names not resolving
Maybe a local (to here) problem, but I thought I'd inquire before I start
looking into it.
Scott L. Stursa
Scott Stursa wrote:
Two (possibly related?) phenomena:
1. Nothing from NANOG since yesterday.
2. .org TLD names not resolving
Maybe a local (to here) problem, but I thought I'd inquire before I start
looking into it.
Interesting. Cox Central mail was dead from about 1300 Central
yesterday unti
>>> Scott Stursa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/12/04 8:26:15 AM >>>
>
>Two (possibly related?) phenomena:
>
>1. Nothing from NANOG since yesterday.
>
>2. .org TLD names not resolving
That's interesting. I hadn't noticed that it was all .org TLD names
that weren't resolving. I was considering posting a qu
>> "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/12/04 8:51:58 AM
>>>
>
Scott Stursa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/12/04 8:26:15 AM >>>
>>
>>Two (possibly related?) phenomena:
>>
>>1. Nothing from NANOG since yesterday.
>>
>>2. .org TLD names not resolving
>
>That's interesting. I hadn't noticed that it was
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, John Neiberger wrote:
> Quick followup to my own post. I shouldn't have said that all .org
> names won't resolve because that doesn't appear to be the case, but it
> does appear that some are not resolving.
>
> Anyone know what's going on?
Examples would help... a quick samp
>>> Tim Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/12/04 9:00:11 AM >>>
>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, John Neiberger wrote:
>
>> Quick followup to my own post. I shouldn't have said that all .org
>> names won't resolve because that doesn't appear to be the case, but
it
>> does appear that some are not resolving.
>>
>> A
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Tim Wilde wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, John Neiberger wrote:
>
> > Quick followup to my own post. I shouldn't have said that all .org
> > names won't resolve because that doesn't appear to be the case, but it
> > does appear that some are not resolving.
> >
> > Anyone know w
Summary (in no particular order, well almost ;)
1. Sure do it, We will list you on RFC Ignorant,
will you give me your domain list and save me some time?
2. Forward to the holder of the domain, bouncing webmaster and listing contacts on
website in reply.
3. All Abuse to go to one accou
Chris Boyd wrote:
NTL World no longer accepts abuse@ email. You have to go to a web form
that requires javascript be enabled and enter all of the information for
them. I guess that they got tired of processing the the abuse@ mail
load and just bit bucketed it.
I'm late on this thread and I do
Robert Blayzor wrote:
Chris Boyd wrote:
NTL World no longer accepts abuse@ email. You have to go to a web
form that requires javascript be enabled and enter all of the
information for them. I guess that they got tired of processing the
the abuse@ mail load and just bit bucketed it.
I'm late
on Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 12:31:59PM -0400, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> I can understand the reasoning behind what they are doing, but perhaps
> they are taking things in the wrong direction. Our abuse@ email address
> is just that, abused. Our abuse@ mailbox gets probably 500+ spams a day
> with m
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"McBurnett, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
how do some ISP's handle it?
You host hundreds or thousands of domains. most with no webmaster etc...
does it matter for the "small company" domain?
Most hosted domains I've met come with unlimited email addresses, so
th
Steven Champeon wrote:
[...] Having our techs/engineers go through the abuse@ box every day
to play hide and seek is a bit of an agonizing task that nobody really
wants, especially at the volume it is today.
Isn't it their job?
Yes and no. They're responsible for addressing the real problems, a
bill, mind to not use NANOG as your own yellow pages ?
-chris
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
>
> If there is somebody from Cisco on this list who has been accessing
> completewhois port 43 whois service with thousands of consequitive queries
> for last few days (or possibly
On 4/12/2004 11:31 AM, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> address are getting lost in the fray. Having our techs/engineers go
> through the abuse@ box every day to play hide and seek is a bit of an
> agonizing task that nobody really wants, especially at the volume it is
On the other hand, making me spen
on Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 01:01:28PM -0400, Robert Blayzor wrote:
>
> Steven Champeon wrote:
>
> >>[...] Having our techs/engineers go through the abuse@ box every day
> >>to play hide and seek is a bit of an agonizing task that nobody really
> >>wants, especially at the volume it is today.
> >
>
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
: If even well-informed people do this, and can't fix their systems, what
: hope is there for the typical Internet user?
Absoultely none. Running a big eyeball network for the past year+ has
given me real insight to the end user that I didn't get at a
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> I can understand the reasoning behind what they are doing, but perhaps
> they are taking things in the wrong direction. Our abuse@ email address
> is just that, abused. Our abuse@ mailbox gets probably 500+ spams a day
> with maybe 2-3 legit emails th
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> > I can understand the reasoning behind what they are doing, but perhaps
> > they are taking things in the wrong direction. Our abuse@ email address
> > is just that, abused. Our abuse@ mailbox gets probably
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| According to the Washington Post
|
| America Online says it has seen a dramatic decline in spam over
| the past month, due to improved filtering techniques and fear of
| litigation under a new U.S. law. In a one-m
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:05:22 -, Richard Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The team at AOL have put a SUBSTANTIAL effort into resolving problems
> over recent months - finding solutions to things that would have had
> most network admins despairing whether any solutions even existed.
One has to
One has to wonder what impact it would have on AOL's bottom line if they were
to release their solutions so we could all use them, thus cutting down their
load as well.
Maybe they could include the software set in the next version of WinAMP :_)
DJ
Anyone from Cox Communications Network or NOC on the list?
Please contact me directly.
Thanks
Chris
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Richard Cox wrote:
> Nothing even close to that can be said of NTL. Unfortunately.
NTL put their head in the sand in the hopes their spam problem will go
away. Unfortunately for NTL what will end up happening is NTL mail will go
away, into global RBLs and thousands of priv
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Iljitsch van Beijnum) [Mon 12 Apr 2004, 10:07 CEST]:
> Wow, VoIP+sat+GSM, that must add up to close to 1500 ms delay! That
> can't be any fun.
No worse than regular phone service in India (my gsm was roaming on a
local operator's net, international call to the Netherlands),
On 4/12/2004 2:53 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> I'm not sure people actually understand the scope of what some ISPs
> have to deal with.
Percentage of revenues are about the same aren't they?
--
Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 09:03:38PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > According to the Washington Post
> >
> >America Online says it has seen a dramatic decline in spam over the
> >past month, due to improved filtering techniques and fear of
> >litigation under a new U.S. law. In a
Hi!
> > Presumably the 6.8m figure is how many users click the 'spam' button in the AOL
> > mail client and not how many abuse complaints are sent in?
>
> Probably, yes.
>
> AOL isn't a huge source of abuse compared to most DSL/cable providers,
> so probably aren't seeing a huge number of inco
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Avleen Vig) [Mon 12 Apr 2004, 06:56 CEST]:
> Forward abuse@ for all domains to just one account.
> Repeat for each role account.
> Run spam assassin, or other spam limitting software of your choice
> (realize that false positives are possible).
Possible? Make that very likel
On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 11:49:36PM +0200, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
> > > Presumably the 6.8m figure is how many users click the 'spam' button in the AOL
> > > mail client and not how many abuse complaints are sent in?
> >
> > Probably, yes.
> >
> > AOL isn't a huge source of abuse compared to
On 04/12/04, "Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/12/2004 2:53 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure people actually understand the scope of what some ISPs
> > have to deal with.
>
> Percentage of revenues are about the same aren't they?
I doubt it. The spammers go a
> 1. Nothing from NANOG since yesterday.
and you're complaining?
> 2. .org TLD names not resolving
horsepucky. and this is why i did not miss nangog
randy
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Niels Bakker wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Avleen Vig) [Mon 12 Apr 2004, 06:56 CEST]:
> > Forward abuse@ for all domains to just one account.
> > Repeat for each role account.
> > Run spam assassin, or other spam limitting software of your choice
> > (realize that false posit
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Steve Atkins wrote:
> > But AOL is target of a lot of virusses and spam runs, and i must say, they
> > do a pretty good job with managing al of that. Compliments to Carl and his
>
> Another reason is that they're not really an ISP, in the traditional
> sense. They have far
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:05:31 BST, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said:
> software, or perhaps the OS will tend more in this direction for its user
> software and become more restrictive?
The truly odd part here is that there are already moves by the largest vendor
to become more restrictive, mostly in resp
> NTL put their head in the sand in the hopes their spam problem will go
> away. Unfortunately for NTL what will end up happening is NTL mail will
> go away, into global RBLs and thousands of private block lists.
if ntl wants to just be in the access-line business and not in the internet
busines
there are three replies here.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Blayzor) writes:
> ... Having our techs/engineers go through the abuse@ box every day to
> play hide and seek is a bit of an agonizing task that nobody really
> wants, especially at the volume it is today. If there was a standard
43 matches
Mail list logo
