> Brielle is correct. The customer in question is spamming networks and we
> are having trouble filtering them because another provider allows them to
> source traffic however they please.
If they are spamming just pull the plug, whatever revenue you get from them
is not worth your reputation and
Yes - term the account would be my recommendation
And if you filter port 25 traffic do it both ways
Read these old nanog threads ..
http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0408/0465.html and
http://www.mail-archive.com/na...@merit.edu/msg28863.html
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:58 AM, William Herrin
wro
> Brielle is correct. The customer in question is spamming networks and
> we are having trouble filtering them because another provider allows
> them to source traffic however they please.
then perhaps the issue is a bit larger than their traffic incoming to
you. disconnect the schmucks.
randy
> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:42:29 -0700
> From: Brielle Bruns
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Fwd: News Delivery Report (Failure)
>
> Is anyone else getting these when you post to the nanog list?
Similar. I get these from Ritz Camera:
From: Antigen_RITZEXCHANGE
To: ghi...@hicks-net.net
Subje
Peter Dambier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am missing manitu from dtag dsl.
> Hetzner can see them:
>
> DTAG:
> traceroute to f-root.cesidio.net (89.238.64.147), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 yttrium.anul.nsa (7.19.30.39) 3 ms 1 ms 0 ms <<< (NAT
> 62.227.194.126)
> 2 217.0.116.228 (217.0.
Brielle Bruns wrote:
> Is anyone else getting these when you post to the nanog list?
>
Looks like someone subscribed a broken news feeder thing to the list.
~Seth
Hi,
I am missing manitu from dtag dsl.
Hetzner can see them:
DTAG:
traceroute to f-root.cesidio.net (89.238.64.147), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 yttrium.anul.nsa (7.19.30.39) 3 ms 1 ms 0 ms
2 217.0.116.228 (217.0.116.228) 47 ms 46 ms 45 ms
3 217.0.78.58 (217.0.78.58) 45 ms !H 46
Is anyone else getting these when you post to the nanog list?
--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
Original Message
Subject: News Delivery Report (Failure)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:06:42 -0500
From: mail
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 2:14 PM, ML wrote:
> Brielle is correct. The customer in question is spamming networks and we
> are having trouble filtering them because another provider allows them to
> source traffic however they please.
What trouble? SMTP requires two-way traffic with a static port n
(Forgive the top posting, stupid blackberry can't do inline)
If the PoP is connected to a central location, reroute the affected netblock
there through the appropriate equipment. If you snag it going both ways before
it hits the PoP, you should be good.
--Original Message--
From: Dua
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> My partner Tammy says a PIX could probably accomplish the same task (we have
> some here for the corp lan stuff, including spares).
Yes, a PIX/ASA would stop this cold. The TCP state tracking would not
allow traffic to pass unless the who
(Forgive the top posting, stupid blackberry can't do inline)
A creative idea that I did in a test lab one time - stateful connection
tracking, its not just for NAT you know.
Would require a bit of moving stuff around and reengineering of your connection
to them, but it would cripple their conne
Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 11/27/09 8:43 PM, ML wrote:
I'm reasonable certain a customer of ours who is using one of our
netblocks is using a different reverse path to reach us. How might I
figure out who is allowing them to source traffic from IPs that belong
to us?
I've had two customers pul
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 09:41:09AM -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
> [attributions lost]
> > > >>> I'm reasonable certain a customer of ours who is using one of our
> > > >>> netblocks is using a different reverse path to reach us. How might I
> > > >>> figure out who is allowing them to source tra
On 11/27/09 8:43 PM, ML wrote:
I'm reasonable certain a customer of ours who is using one of our
netblocks is using a different reverse path to reach us. How might I
figure out who is allowing them to source traffic from IPs that belong
to us?
I've had two customers pull this stunt in the pa
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 09:41:09AM -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
[attributions lost]
> > >>> I'm reasonable certain a customer of ours who is using one of our
> > >>> netblocks is using a different reverse path to reach us. How might I
> > >>> figure out who is allowing them to source traffic from IPs
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:43 PM, ML wrote:
> I'm reasonable certain a customer of ours who is using one of our netblocks
> is using a different reverse path to reach us. How might I figure out who
> is allowing them to source traffic from IPs that belong to us?
Hi,
Are they complaining about s
> >>> I'm reasonable certain a customer of ours who is using one of our
> >>> netblocks is using a different reverse path to reach us. How might I
> >>> figure out who is allowing them to source traffic from IPs that belong
> >>> to us?
> >> you are implying that they are not allowed to multi-h
18 matches
Mail list logo
