On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> The credit cards in our case were legit. They were different numbers, but
> they were not stolen.
That would make a difference. The credit card companies probably wouldn't
care if you told them that the cards were being used by their customer for
ill
At 01:18 PM 23/09/2003, Jack Bates wrote:
Mike Tancsa wrote:
I am not advocating that at all. ("everyone's doing it, so let's not
bother") However, I dont see what the municipal government has to do with
a matter like this. I imagine its a civil issue where you have to get
the lawyers involve
Mike Tancsa wrote:
I am not advocating that at all. ("everyone's doing it, so let's not
bother") However, I dont see what the municipal government has to do
with a matter like this. I imagine its a civil issue where you have to
get the lawyers involved :( Certainly if the company persisted,
I am not advocating that at all. ("everyone's doing it, so let's not
bother") However, I dont see what the municipal government has to do with a
matter like this. I imagine its a civil issue where you have to get the
lawyers involved :( Certainly if the company persisted, we would have done
Mike Tancsa wrote:
Local government has nothing to do with it. It was just some dime a
dozen porn company.
Back to the "everyone's doing it, so let's not bother" syndrome.
-Jack
At 01:55 PM 21/09/2003, Justin Shore wrote:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> Yes, this is all too familiar. Luckily it was not so acute for us. The
> porn company in question was using legit credit cards and we knew where
> they were located. We too got to the point where I had to con
Andy Walden wrote:
I'm not necessarily making a statement one way or the other on port 25
filtering, but SMTP Auth, when properly configured and protected against
brute force attacks is certainly a useful thing. YMMV of course.
Keyloggers are popular in the same viruses that install open proxies.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:01:27PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
> The problem is many "clients" act as servers for part of the transaction.
[...]
> And do we really want to discuss peer-to-peer networking, which as
> the name suggests, peer-to-peer.
The Internet has always consisted of peer-to-peer
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> Yes, this is all too familiar. Luckily it was not so acute for us. The
> porn company in question was using legit credit cards and we knew where
> they were located. We too got to the point where I had to contemplate
> blocking dialups with no ANI a
My guess is that you haven't heard of the current issue with various
servers running SMTP AUTH. These MTAs are secure by normal
mechanisms, but are being made to relay spam anyway.
You're right. It's been a while since I was last on the front lines
of this issue.
It's hard enough to get mailserve
Yes, this is all too familiar. Luckily it was not so acute for us. The
porn company in question was using legit credit cards and we knew where
they were located. We too got to the point where I had to contemplate
blocking dialups with no ANI as I had already blocked all access from their
p
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
But someone has to. The trouble is that access to the network has
never been considered a liability, except for local ports under 1024.
(Have a look at java, for example.) I believe that the only way to
solve all this nonsense is to have a mechanism that is preferabl
On zaterdag, sep 20, 2003, at 21:36 Europe/Amsterdam, Sean Donelan
wrote:
Should any dialup, dsl, cable, wi-fi, dhcp host be able to use any
service
at any time? For example run an SMTP mailer, or leave Network
Neighborhood open for others to browse or install software on their
computers?
As so
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Justin Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Now I'm going to get even more off-topic. It occurs to me that major
>changes to a protocol such as SMTP getting auth should justify utilizing a
>different tcp/ip port. Think about it like this. If authenticated forms
>of
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Justin Shore wrote:
> This veers off the original topic. Of course I don't think any of us
> recall what that was anyways... I remember back when I first started
> using the DUL. Of all the DNSBLs I used at the time it blocked the most
> spam of any of them. I mean that b
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Sean Donelan wrote:
> It costs service providers more (cpu/ram/equipment) to filter a
> connection. And even more for every exception. Should service providers
> charge customers with filtering less (even though it costs more), and
> customers without filtering more (even tho
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Margie wrote:
> Very little spam coming off dialups and other dynamically assigned,
> "residential" type connections has anything to do with open relays.
> The vast majority of it is related to open proxies (which the machine
> owners do not realize they are running) and mach
> I would suggest instead that you have mandatory
> sending via your relays, and allow inbound
> connections to port 25.
We're a fairly big provider on the GRIC (global roaming) network.
That means that it's not feasible for us to prevent many of our POPs' users
from contacting off-net SMTP serv
--On Saturday, September 20, 2003 6:36 PM -0500 Andy Walden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Would this be a reference to the qmail-smtp-auth patch that
> recently was discovered, that if misconfigured, could allow
> incorrect relays?
No, that was the tip of the iceberg.
> If so, I would say th
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Margie wrote:
> If the person running the system in question wants to run server
> class services, such as ftp, smtp, etc, then they need to get a
> compatible connection to the internet. There are residential service
> providers that allow static IP addressing, will provide r
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Bellis) [Sun 21 Sep 2003, 00:25 CEST]:
> What we do have though are (optional) *inbound* filters that make sure
> no-one can connect to their privileged ports over TCP/IP, and a mandatory
> filter that says only our network can deliver to their SMTP service.
There's an IS
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:22:34 +0100
"Ray Bellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What we do have though are (optional) *inbound* filters that make sure
> no-one can connect to their privileged ports over TCP/IP, and a mandatory
> filter that says only our network can deliver to their SMTP service.
>
>
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:05:08 -0700
Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I'm not convinced blocking port 25 on dialups helps much with that.
| What it does help with is preventing them from connecting to open
| relays.
There are so few open relays now that spammers have moved on. They
now us
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Margie wrote:
> My guess is that you haven't heard of the current issue with various
> servers running SMTP AUTH. These MTAs are secure by normal
> mechanisms, but are being made to relay spam anyway.
Would this be a reference to the qmail-smtp-auth patch that recently was
--On Saturday, September 20, 2003 2:46 PM -0700 Owen DeLong
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still disagree with this. To prevent SPAM, people shouldn't run
> open relays and the open relay problem should be solved. Breaking
> legitimate port 25 traffic is a temporary hack.
Very little spam comi
> However, I'm not convinced blocking port 25 on
> dialups helps much with that. What it does
> help with is preventing them from connecting to
> open relays.
We don't stop our dial customers from getting *to* anything.
What we do have though are (optional) *inbound* filters that make sure
no-o
However, I'm not convinced blocking port 25 on dialups helps much with that.
What it does help with is preventing them from connecting to open relays.
The real solution in the long run will be two-fold:
1. Internet hosts need to become less penetrable. (or at least
one
Hi, NANOGers.
] I still disagree with this. To prevent SPAM, people shouldn't run open
] relays and the open relay problem should be solved. Breaking legitimate
] port 25 traffic is a temporary hack.
I suspect that most spam avoids open relays. The abuse of
proxies, routers, and bots for this
--On Saturday, September 20, 2003 3:36 PM -0400 Sean Donelan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has anyone else notice the flip-flops?
To prevent spam providers should block port 25.
I still disagree with this. To prevent SPAM, people shouldn't run open
relays and the open relay problem should be so
Has anyone else notice the flip-flops?
To prevent spam providers should block port 25.
If providers block ports, e.g. port 135, they aren't providing access to
the "full" Internet.
Should any dialup, dsl, cable, wi-fi, dhcp host be able to use any service
at any time? For example run an SMT
> > Why do you get to decide that, I can't, from a hotel room, call my ISP and
> > put up a web server on my dialup connection so someone behind a firewall
> > can retrieve a document I desperately need to get to them? Why
> > _SHOULDN'T_
> > I run a web server to do this over a dialup connection
Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes. I responded to this in a previous post. We must do what we must do
temporarily to keep things running. However, breaking the net is not a
long
term solution. We must work to solve the underlying problem or it just
becomes
an arms-race where eventually, no services ar
> Why do you get to decide that, I can't, from a hotel room, call my ISP and
> put up a web server on my dialup connection so someone behind a firewall
> can retrieve a document I desperately need to get to them? Why
> _SHOULDN'T_
> I run a web server to do this over a dialup connection? Why do
I disagree. In my opinion a NSP shouldn't filter traffic unless one of
its customers requests it. However I strongly believe that an ISP (where
it's customers are Joe Blow average citizen and Susy Homemaker) should
take every reasonable step to protect it's users from malicious traffic
and that
ED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:23 AM
To: Matthew Kaufman; 'Jack Bates'; 'Adam Hall'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Providers removing blocks on port 135?
OK... Obviously, you need to do what you need to do to keep things
running. However, that should be a temporary
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> I agree entirely with this. You shouldn't call yourself an ISP unless you
> can transport the whole Internet, including those "bad Microsoft ports",
> between the world and your customers.
I disagree. In my opinion a NSP shouldn't filter traffic
CTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:23 AM
> To: Matthew Kaufman; 'Jack Bates'; 'Adam Hall'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Providers removing blocks on port 135?
>
>
> OK... Obviously, you need to do what you need to do to keep things
> running.
pipe requirements by 10-20%.
Matthew Kaufman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:03 AM
To: Jack Bates; Adam Hall
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: Providers remov
tember 19, 2003 10:03 AM
> To: Jack Bates; Adam Hall
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135?
>
>
>
> FWIW, my opinion is that blocking this at the customer edge
> per customer request is fine. Any other blocking by an ISP
> is damage and should be routed around like any other internet damage.
>
> Owen
>
FWIW, my opinion is that blocking this at the customer edge per customer
request is fine. Any other blocking by an ISP is damage and should be
routed around like any other internet damage.
Owen
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Adam Hall wrote:
> Anyone know anything about prorviders removing ACLs from their routers to
> allow ports 135/445/ back into their network? Curious only because
> customers are calling in saying that Verizon, Cox, Bellsouth, and DSL.net
> are doing so and seem to have a
Adam Hall wrote:
Anyone know anything about prorviders removing ACLs from their routers
to allow ports 135/445/ back into their network? Curious only
because customers are calling in saying that Verizon, Cox, Bellsouth,
and DSL.net are doing so and seem to have a big problem with the fac
Title: Providers removing blocks on port 135?
Anyone know anything about prorviders removing ACLs from their routers to allow ports 135/445/ back into their network? Curious only because customers are calling in saying that Verizon, Cox, Bellsouth, and DSL.net are doing so and seem to
43 matches
Mail list logo
