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 -
.
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
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 violation of our AUP. (In fact we null0 the /32 in question).
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
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
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 blocking net blocks
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
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 sit it
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 spam
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
-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, spews has decided to now block one of our
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?
Quick Comment as a NANOG lurker and SPEWS
-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, spews has decided to now block
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
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
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 was a
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
involved.
Face
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?
The only solution for eliminating
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
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...
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
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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
