> > To: Neil J. McRae
> > Cc: Sabri Berisha; Stephen Sprunk; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Spam. Again.. -- and blocking net blocks?
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry for top posting, but I'm late for work...
> >
> > --
> >
> > Agre
s Inc.
Tel: (905)326-1570
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Lixfeld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: December 11, 2002 8:51 AM
> To: Neil J. McRae
> Cc: Sabri Berisha; Stephen Sprunk; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Spam. Again.. -- and blocking net blocks?
>
>
Sorry for top posting, but I'm late for work...
--
Agreed. I believe that society dictates that the accumulation of
personal wealth is one of the most important factors to most people who
have the means to generate it in abundance. Any avenue to make a buck
will supersede any legislation or "P
> What I'm trying to say is that 'the solution' will probably have to be a
> combination of legislation and technical measures.
It won't fix the problem. The world needs to change to stop
driving the possible gains from sending spam. Its an eduction/social issue.
Regards,
Neil.
--
Neil J. McRae
I'm not taking sides here, but do want to mention some other
aspects:
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Scott Silzer said:
>
>
> I could understand if an ISP was allowing spam from a portion of
> there (sic) network. But in this case the only thing that the ISP did is
> host a we
I like Segal's DoS idea, except instead of the packet generators, let's
be nice and just DDoS port 25 on the sunzofbiatches mail servers/load
balancers...
fight fire with fire... :)
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 20:39, Scott Silzer wrote:
> That is exactly what was done to to Futureway a third party s
That is exactly what was done to to Futureway a third party spammed
for a site hosted by a downstream ISP and the result was there entire
network begging blacklisted by SPEWS.
At 15:41 -0800 12/10/2002, David Schwartz wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:45:29 -0500, Scott Silzer wrote:
I could un
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Barry Shein wrote:
> The only solution to spam is to start charging for email (perhaps with
> reasonable included minimums if that calms you down for some large set
> of "you") and thus create an economic incentive for all parties
> involved.
Absolutely unrealistic... microp
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:45:29 -0500, Scott Silzer wrote:
>I could understand if an ISP was allowing spam from a portion of
>there network. But in this case the only thing that the ISP did is
>host a website, the SPAM was sent from from a third party's network.
>The ISP did terminate the customer
spammers 69.0.0.0/8 ip
space the problem would take care of itself.
-Scotty
- Original Message -
From: "hostmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: Spam. Again.. -- and blocking net blocks?
>
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> Barry Shein wrote:
> > The only solution to spam is to start charging for email (perhaps with
> > reasonable included minimums if that calms you down for some large set
> > of "you") and thus create an economic incentive for all parties
> > involve
Barry Shein wrote:
> The only solution to spam is to start charging for email (perhaps with
> reasonable included minimums if that calms you down for some large set
> of "you") and thus create an economic incentive for all parties
> involved.
>
> Face it folks, the party is over, the free-for-all
The only solution to spam is to start charging for email (perhaps with
reasonable included minimums if that calms you down for some large set
of "you") and thus create an economic incentive for all parties
involved.
Face it folks, the party is over, the free-for-all was a nice idea but
it simply
Are you billing and presumably suing (if they don't pay) the owners of
the website et al for the damages they've caused your business by all
this?
If not you're just subsidizing their attempt to profit off of mayhem
at your expense.
The question of course is rhetorical.
On December 10, 2002 a
Hello Hansel,
Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 3:08:20 PM, you wrote:
LH> The SPEWS concept prevents an ISP from allowing spammers on some blocks
LH> while trying to service legitimate customers on others. For an ISP - it is
LH> either all or none over time, you support spammers and are blocked as a
27;ve never tolerated a spammer.
Hansel
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 08:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Spam. Again.. -- and blocking net blocks?
Problem:
For som
reway Communications Inc.
Tel: (905)326-1570
> -Original Message-
> From: Lee, Hansel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: December 10, 2002 3:08 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Spam. Again.. -- and blocking net blocks?
tolerated a spammer.
Hansel
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 08:36
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Spam. Again.. -- and blocking net blocks?
> Problem:
> For some reason, s
The only solution for eliminating spam is a radical change in social
behavior of those whom are causing, allowing and facilitating it. All
reasonable attempts to do so have failed, mainly due to commercial
interests. Thus only a primitive and for some painful interference
helps. Though few w
I tend to agree. We had the same issue a customer who we did not know was
a spammer did something similar and they listed our blocks. I terminated
the customer. I believe spews has a newsgroup that is listed on their
site you can post to but more than that I'm not certain. Also its funny
how
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 17:03, Bryan Bradsby wrote:
>
> > Check out www.antispews.org
> > -kyle
>
> There are two SPEWS lists.
>
> SPEWS[1] lists direct spam sources as accurately as /32
Which is the list that our corporate servers and my home lan ended up
on, despite never having sent direct spa
> Check out www.antispews.org
> -kyle
There are two SPEWS lists.
SPEWS[1] lists direct spam sources as accurately as /32
SPEWS[2] includes SPEWS[1] plus collatteral damage.
to clarify, nothing more.
-bryan bradsby
Check out www.antispews.org
-kyle
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Mark Segal wrote:
>
> Before the flame begins..
>
> I'm not sure when this started..
>
> Background:
> We have a downstream ISP, who hosts a website of questionable material.
> This customer (of our customer) used a third party to spam o
Looking at this from another angle, what RBL set are people using that
works well?
This is our current set:
blackholes.mail-abuse.org, dialups.mail-abuse.org, relays.mail-abuse.org,
dynablock.wirehub.net, inputs.relays.osirusoft.com,
socks.relays.osirusoft.com, formmail.relays.monkeys.com,
proxie
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> There is no technical solution to spam.
Nor is there a legal or political one...
Deeann M.M. Mikula
Director of Operations
Telerama Public Access Internet
http://www.telerama.com * 412.688.3200
> > Questions:
> > 1) How do we smack some sense into spews?
>
> Very difficult we had a similar problem. One bad customer and SPEWS
> blackholes not only our corporate LAN but also my HOME address range,
> and that of my home ISP, who was not even peripherally involved.
>
> We just had to s
On 10 Dec 2002, Nigel Titley wrote:
> > 2) Does anyone else see a HUGE problem with listing a /19 because there is
> > one /32 of a spam advertised website? When did this start happening?
>
> Since SPEWS, with its complete lack of accountability, started being
> used by respectable spam blocking
Services
Futureway Communications Inc.
Tel: (905)326-1570
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: December 10, 2002 10:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Spam. Again.. -- and b
> Problem:
> For some reason, spews has decided to now block one of our /19.. Ie no
mail
> server in the /19 can send mail.
> Questions:
> 1) How do we smack some sense into spews?
Make it easy for them to identify the fact that your downstream ISP
customer has allocated that /32 to a separate
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 15:00, Mark Segal wrote:
>
> Before the flame begins..
>
> I'm not sure when this started..
>
> Background:
> We have a downstream ISP, who hosts a website of questionable material.
> This customer (of our customer) used a third party to spam on their behalf..
> Which is a
30 matches
Mail list logo
