On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:05:41 + (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Sure, customer of a customer we got emailtools.com kicked from their
original 'home' now they've moved off (probably several times since 2000)
to another customer. This
Larry Pingree wrote:
Can you suggest another method that would have more accuracy? I think
it's ridiculous that every service on the internet is provided without
any authentication and integrity services, if we allowed anyone to
call from anywhere within the telephone network, you'd have
Chris why do you give me such easy ones? :)
This situation has been known for years and it is I repeat trivially easy to solve.
1-There are relatively small numbers of serious spammers and of ISPs.
2-In your contract you require all your customers to know the true identities of
their
And again, much of this comes down to enforcement. When was the last
time you heard of a spammer's domain being pulled? How about the last
time you saw a spammer be even remotely bothered by having their
domain pulled? Do you think they'll really care less about losing a
mail server when
This process happens repeatedly, spammers know they can get about a month
of time (or more, depending on upstreams and hosting providers in
question) of life, either way it's just 50 bucks
forgive my question, but why does it take a month? If you had a bad route
causing an outage for the
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Curtis Maurand wrote:
spamhaus has gotten too agressive. Its now preventing too much legitimate
email.
Spammers have gotten too agressive. If you don't filter you would not
see any legitimate email.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
spamhaus has gotten too agressive. Its now preventing too much legitimate
email.
Spammers have gotten too agressive. If you don't filter you would not
see any legitimate email.
a couple of days before my primary email server crashed, so i
configured a backup machine.
Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Poof! MCI spam problem goes away in 30 days.
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
I think the discussion is over.
---Rob
[Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:20:33AM +0700]
Dr. Jeffrey Race Inscribed these words...
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:05:41 + (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Sure, customer of a customer we got emailtools.com kicked from their
original 'home' now they've moved off (probably several times since
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:20:30 -0400, Stephen Perciballi wrote:
I think you may be missing a major point. UUNET/MCI provides dedicated internet
services to so many downstreams that it is impossible to stop spammers from
signing up to those downstreams. Preventing spammers from signing up for
Is it possible for some people to chime in on backbone scaling
issues that have a linksys cable modem router to test on?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Poof! MCI spam problem goes away in 30 days.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Larry Pingree wrote:
| Mail servers should be registered just like domains and shutdown by a
| registrar if they are misusing their registered services. This really
| needs to be handled by a multi-lateral legal solution, industry will not
| fix it
It is the same way credit reporting works: you mess up, you get no
credit.
Come on guys, you are all smart engineers. This is not rocket science.
If anyone really cared about SPAM, then the credit reporting
companies would already be collecting information about
SPAMmers and network
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 06:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:48:14 MDT, John Neiberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
IANAL, but it appears that from a contractual perspective it is clear
that ARIN retains all 'ownership' rights to the address space. They
subdivide it to those
Many network operators have Trouble Ticket systems (as per RFC1297)
which send mails notifying customers, peers and other interested parties
of network problems, events and so on. Many of these mails cross my
desk, so I thought it might be useful to make two small suggestions to
trivially
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, George Roettger wrote:
This process happens repeatedly, spammers know they can get about a month
of time (or more, depending on upstreams and hosting providers in
question) of life, either way it's just 50 bucks
forgive my question, but why does it take a
That sentence is A joke 15000 subscribers affected
Court Convicts Obscene Text Messager
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=IPQ4NZVA4P24ACRBAELCFEY?type=technologyNewsstoryID=5504916
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And again, much of this comes down to enforcement.
When was
At 7:29 PM -0400 6/23/04, Robert Blayzor wrote:
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
This would absolutely have to be challenged on cross-examination.
Were I the attorney, especially if the plaintiff had mentioned
telephone number portability, I would ask the plaintiff to explain
what additional work had
That sentence is A joke 15000 subscribers affected
A joke? Doing hard time is no joke.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;
jsessionid=IPQ4NZVA4P24ACRBAELCFEY?type=technologyNewsstoryID=5504916
Maybe I read the Russian wrong here
http://www.echel.ru/news/?page=2id=3421#3421
but it
Seems to be working fine now:
% dig nanog.org ns +trace
; DiG 9.2.2-P3 nanog.org ns +trace
;; global options: printcmd
. 298767 IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 298767 IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 298767 IN
Hi,
...on Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:18:26AM -0400, Adam Kujawski wrote:
Anybody else having problems resolving .ORG domains via TLD1.ULTRADNS.NET
(204.74.112.1) and TLD2.ULTRADNS.NET. (204.74.113.1). I'm seeing slow
respones, or no responses.
Same here, until a few minutes ago. Didn't
rant
A reminder to folks giving status reports on anycasted DNS deployments,
don't forget to mention which node you are querying.
For the F root (and other BIND implementations):
dig +norec @f.root-servers.net hostname.bind chaos txt
For UltraDNS:
dig +norec @tld1.ultradns.net
Or if you can't reach em, even good old traceroute can be useful...
Ray
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:45:24AM -0700, Mike Damm wrote:
rant
A reminder to folks giving status reports on anycasted DNS deployments,
don't forget to mention which node you are querying.
For the F root (and
Is it just me, or are more sites breaking pmtud these days? It's
getting tempting to hack up ietf-pmtud-method support even before
it becomes standard...
Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth,
no, its not just you. i've had issues with couple customers having problems
visiting two large sites due to pMTUd breakage. it was discouraging to see
some fortune100 web sites breaking their filtering too much over the line.
-J
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 05:25:09PM +, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
no, its not just you. i've had issues with couple customers having problems
visiting two large sites due to pMTUd breakage. it was discouraging to see
some fortune100 web sites breaking their filtering too much over the line.
in many cases, those companies put web load-balancing
I did read the article and having worked for gov't agencies twice in my
career a proposal like the one floated by DHS is just the camel's nose.
I should hope the carriers oppose this.
Now a call comes into our ops center I cant reach my experiment at
Stanford. Ops looks up the outages Oh yeah
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:22:02 +0700, Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not at all. You can terminate for actions prejudicial to the safety and security
of the system. Has nothing to do with anti-trust.
I suspect that the spammer can find a lawyer who is willing to argue the idea
that
I agree, there are much more important things to protect than
this information. It would be almost impossible to manage, and even more
unlikely to ever have a positive effect. Besides, if someone with ill
intentions has the abilities to act so quickly on such short notice,
then we have
But if you telnet from an IP that is not registered, you would
be denied. Thus at least eliminating many of the erroneous email servers
out there on the DSL, dial-up and other broadband connections, this has
been tried in the open with such things as MABS RBL, etc by blocking
common
I think you (and possibly The Register) are overreacting.
The DHS is doing what it is paid to do: Look for the worst case
scenario, predict the damage.
And the reporting requirements that the DHS is arguing against _aren't
even in effect yet._
** Reply to message from Scott McGrath [EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Robert E. Seastrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
On 24 Jun 2004
--On Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:17 AM -0700 Larry Pingree
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Joe,
If only those who are approved email senders are allowed to be
accepted, this allows police, FBI, or DHS to go after only those who are
registered and abusing it. It's for the same purpose that we
Did anyone notice any network related issues on the Boston UUNET network
earlier this morning (4:00AM PST - 8:30 AM PST). What we observed was
high latency for the following network 208.254.32.0/20?
Regards,
Ken Williams
And all the spammers move to China where the FBI, DHS and police have
no authority.
Oh wait - you say they already have?
** Reply to message from Larry Pingree [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu,
24 Jun 2004 11:17:37 -0700
Hi Joe,
If only those who are approved email senders are allowed to be
On 6/24/2004 11:57 AM, Scott McGrath wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/24/network_outages/
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/8966 is the original, for those of us
who have our doubts about the register as a news source
To summarize:
there are existing FCC requirements to report
Hi John,
I'm not taking it to extremes. I'm talking about the middle of
the road, and certainly spam is the on the top of the scales on
everyone's statistics. I'm certainly not condoning or suggesting that
the government control everything, and I'm not for absolutely no
government
At 11:16 AM 6/24/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:22:02 +0700, Dr. Jeffrey Race
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not at all. You can terminate for actions prejudicial to the safety
and security
of the system. Has nothing to do with anti-trust.
I suspect that the spammer can
Chris,
To start off, thank you for taking this issue seriously and investigating it.
At 08:05 PM 6/23/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
The sbl lists quite a few /32 entries, while this is nice for blocking
spam if you choose to use their RBL service I'm not sure it's a good
measure of 'spamhaus
At 11:34 PM 6/23/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I'd also point out someting that any provider will tell you: Spammers
never pay their bills.
Yes, but this is not a problem for a large carrier, as the people that
receive it sure do. In other words, the money you lose on the spammer is
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:27:10 PDT, Jeff Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The DHS is doing what it is paid to do: Look for the worst case
scenario, predict the damage.
At some point, somebody with some sanity needs to look at the proposal, and say
If we think we have to resort to this, then the
--On Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:08 PM -0700 Larry Pingree
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
I'm not taking it to extremes. I'm talking about the middle of
the road, and certainly spam is the on the top of the scales on
everyone's statistics. I'm certainly not condoning or suggesting
I think you (and possibly The Register) are overreacting.
With the current state of the government and it's previous legislation, I
would consider that not overreacting at all... We as NANOG'ers need to
make sure that we're in the clue. The issue of non-information leads for
longer
I also believe that critical infrastructure needs to be protected and I am
charged with protecting a good chunk of it. Also as a Ham operator I
work in concert with the various emergency management organizations in
dealing with possible worst case scenarios.
No, not everyone who asks about
On 6/24/2004 2:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:27:10 PDT, Jeff Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
And the reporting requirements that the DHS is arguing against
_aren't even in effect yet._
or any number of other sites that keep track of just how much trouble
can be
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
like showing that the spammer was actually sending enough of a volume to
swamp their core routers
Likewise, I imagine MCI could argue that the damage is to their core
product; namely, the trust of other ISPs and their willingness to exchange
I just wanted to give everyone a heads-up on the antispam policies of
SprintPCS, so that you will know what to expect if you start getting blocked
by their mx.messaging.sprintpcs.com mail servers.
As a non-sprint-related side note, I know of somebody whose ATT
Wireless phone service was rendered
Consider the source of policy makers that make these
decisions, are clueless to networks and infrastructure
themselves. They fail to understand any costing
metrics
by adding another loop of useless people to he cycle
at
the expense of everyone, which will in the long run
be damaging to the
Ben Browning said:
snip
A lengthy timeline for action to be taken, from the viewpoint of the
attacked, is indistinguishable from tacit approval of the attacks. I don't
imagine MCI has a lengthy timeline when replying to sales email or billing
issues.
You ARE kidding, right?
--
Grant A.
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
At 11:34 PM 6/23/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I'd also point out someting that any provider will tell you: Spammers
never pay their bills.
Yes, but this is not a problem for a large carrier, as the people that
receive it sure do. In other
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Grant A. Kirkwood wrote:
Ben Browning said:
snip
A lengthy timeline for action to be taken, from the viewpoint of the
attacked, is indistinguishable from tacit approval of the attacks. I don't
imagine MCI has a lengthy timeline when replying to sales email or
- Original Message -
From: Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ben Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
--- snipped ---
this is
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But most people are happy with things the way they are. They love SPAM
because it gives them something to complain about and get emotional
about.
I unfortunately have to agree there.
There's a large portion of the internet who has nothing better to
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
This is, in fact (for you nanae watchers), the reason that most of them
get canceled by us FASTER... Sadly, non-payment is often a quicker and
easier method to term a customer than 'abuse', less checks since there
is no 'percieved revenue' :(
A
At 02:36 PM 6/24/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
like showing that the spammer was actually sending enough of a volume to
swamp their core routers
Likewise, I imagine MCI could argue that the damage is to their core
product; namely, the trust
At 02:36 PM 6/24/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
[ SNIP ]
this discussion anyways, is access to the internet. When the
actions of a
downstream damage that product(IE more and more networks
nullroute UUNet
traffic),
[ Operations
I'm working on trying to teach others in my group (usually
less-experienced, but not always) how to improve their
large-network troubleshooting skills (the techniques of
isolating a problem, etc).
It's been so long since I learned network troubleshooting
techniques I can't remember how I learned
Hi Pete,
If you have a test lab, a good thing would be to setup a
complete functional network. Show the engineer how it's configured. Then
have them leave the room and then break it. Send them back in to look at
what is wrong. As they move through the process, help them by guiding
them
Pete Kruckenberg wrote:
I'm working on trying to teach others in my group (usually
less-experienced, but not always) how to improve their
large-network troubleshooting skills (the techniques of
isolating a problem, etc).
There are several vendors that offer these types of courses, and I am
On Jun 24, 2004, at 2:44 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Has anyone ever encountered spammers doing a dictionary attack
(emailing all phone numbers in a NXX) via email-to-SMS gateways?
If they didn't before, they surely will now.
-davidu
David
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
At 02:36 PM 6/24/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
like showing that the spammer was actually sending enough of a volume to
swamp their core routers
Likewise, I imagine MCI could argue that
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
you mean the phone companies we do business with?
No, I mean the internet. (Hence, ISPs). Your product, in the context of
this discussion anyways, is access to the internet. When the actions of a
downstream damage that product(IE more and more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pete Kruckenberg wrote:
| I'm working on trying to teach others in my group (usually
| less-experienced, but not always) how to improve their
| large-network troubleshooting skills (the techniques of
| isolating a problem, etc).
|
| It's been so long
spamhaus has gotten too agressive.
Its now preventing too much legitimate email.
that's funny, really funny. s/spamhaus/maps/ or s/spamhaus/sorbs/ or indeed
look at any receiver-side filtering mechanism that gets a little traction,
and sooner or later folks will say it's too aggressive and
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:16:49 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect that the spammer can find a lawyer who is willing to argue the idea
that the safety and security of the AS701 backbone was not prejudiced by
the spammer's actions,
OK, let them sue. If you are against spam, you have to
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:33:35 + (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
This is true. The 'security' or 'safety' of the backbone is not affected
by:
1) portscaning by morons for openshares
2) spam mail sending
3) spam mail recieving
(atleast not to my view, though I'm no lawyer, just a chemical
Hi,
Mail servers should be registered just like domains and shutdown by a
registrar if they are misusing their registered services. This really
needs to be handled by a multi-lateral legal solution, industry will not
fix it alone.
No, I don't think this is good solution
First of all, we could
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:26:10 -0600, Smith, Donald wrote:
Are you offering to finance ISP's legal battles against spammers?
No, it's their network and their legal responsibility to keep it clean. However
I did voluntarily prepare a case for Neil Patel to file on behalf of UUNET
under the Va
Eric Kuhnke writes on 6/25/2004 5:44 AM:
As a non-sprint-related side note, I know of somebody whose ATT
Wireless phone service was rendered completely unusable by incoming spam
via the email-to-SMS gateway. The typical rate was one message every 30
minutes, the only solution offered by
I am not a lawyer. I am not aware of the law that requires uunet to
go to court to prevent spammers who are not their direct customers from using their
network. Spammers use many differnt means to send their spam. Most ISPs use AUP's to
prevent spamming but afaik no isp has successfully sued a
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:39:26 -0600, Smith, Donald wrote:
I am not a lawyer. I am not aware of the law that requires uunet to
go to court to prevent spammers who are not their direct customers from using
their network.
Doctrine of attractive nuisance
And just when things looked dismal this had to happen
to make it more so
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1898-2004Jun24.html?referrer=email
-Henry
72 matches
Mail list logo
