Steve Linford wrote:
The statement by Ben Browning: I know several businesses who have,
and a great many people who have blocked UUNet space from sending
them email ... by using ... the SBL is false, the SBL has never
blocked UUNet/MCI IP space that wasn't directly in the control of
spammers. If
From Ben Browning, received 29/6/04, 9:56 am -0700 (GMT):
Steve Linford wrote:
The statement by Ben Browning: I know several businesses who have,
and a great many people who have blocked UUNet space from sending
them email ... by using ... the SBL is false, the SBL has never
blocked UUNet/MCI
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Richard Welty wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Tom (UnitedLayer) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The big deal is that spam complaining/etc is not operational content, and
there are several other lists to handle that sort of thing.
but then, individuals get 1
:
: A simple these statements are untrue, please contact me off list for the
: truth is hardly unreasonable.
:
:
:
Unfortunately a restriction such as that on this list defeats the atmosphere of
openness and education for those who may be reading, but not necessarily
posting to the list.
At 9:43 am -0700 (GMT) 25/6/04, Ben Browning wrote:
At 04:00 PM 6/24/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
[ Operations content: ] Do you know of any ISP's null routing AS701?
ISPs? Not of the top of my head. I know several businesses who
have, and a great many people who have blocked UUNet space from
Steve Linford wrote:
I seldom post here because the couple of times I have followed-up to
correct wrong statements in nanog regarding Spamhaus, such as the
above, I have each time been told by nanog's admin that I will be
removed from the nanog list if I respond to any question in nanog
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Jon R. Kibler wrote:
I seldom post here because the couple of times I have followed-up to
correct wrong statements in nanog regarding Spamhaus, such as the
above, I have each time been told by nanog's admin that I will be
removed from the nanog list if I respond to
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Tom (UnitedLayer) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The big deal is that spam complaining/etc is not operational content, and
there are several other lists to handle that sort of thing.
but then, individuals get 1 free shot at saying things that are in
some
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:27:32 +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
It is the same way credit reporting works: you mess up, you get no credit.
Except then you can generate yet another fake credit card and go
on with your life. Do that a few thousand times a day, even -- no problem.
The
- Original Message -
From: Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Smith, Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: RE: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:39:26 -0600, Smith, Donald wrote:
I am
From the AOL theft article:
The revelations come as AOL and other Internet providers have
ramped up their efforts to track down the purveyors of spam, which
has grown into a maddening scourge that costs consumers and
businesses billions of dollars a year.
Interesting. An insider at a
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Painter
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 4:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
- Original Message -
From: Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Smith, Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL
Well said sir!
Scott C. McGrath
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the AOL theft article:
The revelations come as AOL and other Internet providers have
ramped up their efforts to track down the purveyors of spam, which
has grown into a
Has anyone noticed that the DHS plan is probably closer to the current
status of things than the FCC one is?
AFAIK, Currently this information _isn't_ required to be publicly
reported. The FCC wants it to be.
DHS would prefer that it be semi-public at best - just like Michael
Dillion wants.
At 04:00 PM 6/24/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
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 content: ] Do you know of any
** Reply to message from Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri,
25 Jun 2004 18:14:43 +0200
At 8:44 AM -0700 2004-06-25, Jeff Shultz wrote:
At least if someone in this clearing house sells it to the
terrorists, they will have had to work for it a bit, instead of having
us hand it to
Food for thought: Could an analyst, looking at outage reports over a
period of time, build a schematic that would demonstrate that if you
took out n points, you'd kill x% of data traffic in and out of
$pickyourmetropolitanarea?
If this analyst were working for Bin Ladin
Yes an
** Reply to message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 25 Jun 2004
17:12:45 +0100
Remember, that packet switched networking
originated with the desire to build a telecom
network that could survive massive destruction
on the scale of a nuclear war, but continue to
function. If we apply that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote something like:
Some ad hoc terrorists, in a country crawling with US troops, with a
communications infrastructure nowhere as advanced as the USA just
managed to coordinate a multiple bomb attack simultaneously.
I just got back from lunch at the Wok Inn (Morrill's
Jeff Shultz wrote:
** Reply to message from Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri,
25 Jun 2004 18:14:43 +0200
At 8:44 AM -0700 2004-06-25, Jeff Shultz wrote:
At least if someone in this clearing house sells it to the
terrorists, they will have had to work for it a bit, instead of having
us hand
Do you really think that if we publish all the insecurities of the
Internet infrastructure that anyone is gonna stop using it, or
business, government, and private citizens are going to quit depending
on it?
That is a totally foolish statement in today's world. The incentive for
fixing the
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
At 04:00 PM 6/24/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
[ Operations content: ] Do you know of any ISP's null routing AS701?
ISPs? Not of the top of my head. I know several businesses who have, and a
great many people who have blocked UUNet space from sending
I think that is a bit irresponsible for the simple
reason that MCI has many co-lo clients and any of
their machines could be vulnerable, I think also that
needs to addressed so that blanket statements are
supported by fact and not the need to competitively
break a company down in hopes the you
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:47:07 PDT, Jeff Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The problem with being totally open about infrastructure is that there
are some vulnerabilities that simply cannot or will not be fixed -
wires sometimes have to run across bridges, redundant pumping stations
are too
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
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
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.
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, 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
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
- 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 09
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, 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
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
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
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
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
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
- Massive abuse from your network
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 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
At 10:45 PM 6/22/2004, Tim Thorne wrote:
Not so long ago I took a long look at the SBL for MCI and I came to
the conclusion that the data is mostly out of date and therefore
inaccurate. The folks at the SBL posting in NANAE said this may be the
case, but its up to the MCI folks to clean up the SBL
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
At 12:28 PM 6/21/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
the ethics office doesn't need to see your complaints, they don't really
deal with these anyway.
I am quite sure that the ethics department does not deal with spam
complaints. My complaint is that
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Myke Place wrote:
Can you then explain why there are 189 Spamhaus complaint against
UUnet/MCI which haven't been dealt with?
I answered ben already (a few minutes ago) but I'll answer you as well. I
said I'd look into the listings and see what's known or being done about
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 happens to every ISP, each time they appear we
start the
- Original Message -
From: Dr. Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jeffrey Race [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:05:41 + (GMT), Christopher L
Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:
This endless loop situation does NOT happen to every ISP, only to those who
have not emplaced procedures to prevent serial signups of serial abusers. This is
trivially easy to do and your firm's failure to do so and to enforce this rule on your
contracting parties
(apologies to NANOG for only quasi-operational content of this message - I
only post this here due to the fact that I am sure it is a problem on many
of your networks)
Attention UUNet,
Regarding your continued unabated spam support, when do you plan to address
the *189* issues outlined in the
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
(apologies to NANOG for only quasi-operational content of this message - I
only post this here due to the fact that I am sure it is a problem on many
of your networks)
curious, why did you not send this to the abuse@ alias? Did you include
any logs
At 11:42 AM 6/21/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
curious, why did you not send this to the abuse@ alias?
I wanted it to get read.
Did you include
any logs or other relevant data about the problems you are reporting?
These problems are systemic and internet-wide. I can likely drudge up a
great
curious, why did you not send this to the abuse@ alias?
I wanted it to get read.
you have just certified yourself as an idiot
plonk!
Randy Bush wrote:
curious, why did you not send this to the abuse@ alias?
I wanted it to get read.
you have just certified yourself as an idiot
plonk!
One down, only ~6 billion to go. I sure hope we don´t have to list them
one by one.
Pete
At 12:28 PM 6/21/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
the ethics office doesn't need to see your complaints, they don't really
deal with these anyway.
I am quite sure that the ethics department does not deal with spam
complaints. My complaint is that your stated policy is clearly not being
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:09:05 -0700, Ben Browning wrote:
At this point I am just curious what the answers to these questions are. I
have not (yet) widely blocklisted uunet, but if things don't change I fear
such a measure may be the only way to stop the abuse spewing from your
networks. Seeing
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:28:07 + (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Did you includeany logs or other relevant data about the problems you are
reporting?
These problems are systemic and internet-wide. I can likely drudge up a
great many examples if someone from UUNet can assure me they
71 matches
Mail list logo
