> 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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, 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
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
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
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
r abuse@ mailbox gets probably 500+ spams a day
> > with maybe 2-3 legit emails that we need to look at. Sure we could run
>
> I'm not sure people actually understand the scope of what some ISPs have
> to deal with. Scaling to handle 6.8 million abuse complaints a day is
> hard.
legit emails that we need to look at. Sure we could run
I'm not sure people actually understand the scope of what some ISPs have
to deal with. Scaling to handle 6.8 million abuse complaints a day is
hard. Despite calling them "lazy network operators" some of them work
very hard in
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 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
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
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
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
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
On 11 Apr 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> on the other hand, i just want to say, many isp's are in business to make
> money not save the world, and if a stronger AUP would mean fewer customers,
> then the management team is going to have a very hard time justifying a
> stronger AUP to their shareholder
> > ... Then I went to work for a so-called "Tier-1" and learned in short
> > order that this policy does not scale, especially when abusive
> > customers with DS3s are waving around fully loaded lawyers.
> ...
> If your well lawyered customers complains, wave the AUP at them, if your
> AUP doesn
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 11:45:20PM -0400, Jeff Workman wrote:
> I used to work for a very small (~10k dialup customer) ISP, and at the time
> our abuse policy was "if somebody complains, and you can find *something*
> in the logs, then lock the account." Then I went to work for a so-called
> "
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, Jeff Workman wrote:
> --On Saturday, April 10, 2004 8:30 PM -0700 Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > exodus for example had a hands off policy, dont do a single thing until
> > law enforcement arrives with a search warrant.
>
> While this might be a PITA for everyb
--On Saturday, April 10, 2004 8:30 PM -0700 Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
exodus for example had a hands off policy, dont do a single thing until
law enforcement arrives with a search warrant.
While this might be a PITA for everybody, I don't see why everybody wants
to chastise NSPs fo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Donelan) writes:
> Should anonymous use of the Internet be eliminated so all forms
> of abuse can be tracked and dealt with?
of course not. however, anonymity should be brokered by trusted doubleblinds;
nonbrokered/nontrusted anonymity without recourse by recipients is r
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Should anonymous use of the Internet be eliminated so all forms
> of abuse can be tracked and dealt with?
As long as there are tier1's who allow abuse as long as the checks dont
bounce, this will have zero effect.
exodus for example had a hands off pol
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> NTL peers at Linx, right? I'm sure somebody's mentioned
> http://www.linx.net/noncore/bcp/ube-bcp.html to them?
Should anonymous use of the Internet be eliminated so all forms
of abuse can be tracked and dealt with?
Exception
An exceptio
Suresh writes:
Chris Boyd writes:
>> 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.
>
>
Chris Boyd [10/04/04 14:26 -0500]:
>
> 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.
>
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, Chris Boyd wrote:
> Please note that we no longer accept any network abuse reports at this
> address. Any reports must be submitted by using the following web form:
> http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport
>
> Any reports sent to this email address will not be read and will be
> a
On 4/10/2004 2:26 PM, 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.
option [1] do their job for them so they can run a cheaper net, versus
option [2] blacklist so tha
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:26:46 -0500
Chris Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted:
> Any reports sent to this email address will not be read and will
> be automatically deleted.
Based on experience, it is arguable that not so very much has changed.
--
Richard Cox
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.
From the email I got back from them:
Please note
201 - 234 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
