Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-15 Thread Rich Kulawiec
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:19:00AM -0700, George Herbert wrote: > These guys are in violation of CAN-SPAM. They're also in violation of the DMCA itself. 17 USC 512 includes this requirement for those filing DMCA notifications: (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-14 Thread Christopher Morrow
pretty certain that the list ought not be pushing for bodily harm to individuals... it's fair to say: "trash all their mail" or "block their mailservers at the edge" but calling out hits .. not cool. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote: > Minimal? Probably 22LR. I prefer 458SOCO

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-14 Thread Andrew Kirch
Minimal? Probably 22LR. I prefer 458SOCOM though. As Bob Evans notes, there may be some waiting periods, serial numbers, and background checks involved. :) On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> http://www.procmail.org/ > > I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach. The

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-14 Thread Matthias Leisi
> > Am 14.10.2015 um 18:49 schrieb Christopher Morrow : > > looks like ip-echelon's MX's are: > 67.43.171.100 - 67.43.171.96/27 > 67.43.165.163 - 67.43.165.160/27 > 203.122.134.3 - 122-134-3.dsl.connexus.net.au. ? In or near these ranges, I see 67.43.171.121 (monthly magnitude 5.5) 67.43.165.16

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-14 Thread Mike Hammett
merican Network Operators' Group" , "Rich Kulawiec" Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 1:19:00 PM Subject: Re: IP-Echelon Compliance You guys aren't devious enough. These guys are in violation of CAN-SPAM. To the tune of exceeding the statutory maximum $1,000,000 per

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-14 Thread George Herbert
You guys aren't devious enough. These guys are in violation of CAN-SPAM. To the tune of exceeding the statutory maximum $1,000,000 per ISP last *month* for some of you, much less in the statute of limitations period. You could probably point to refusal to remove as justifying the triple dama

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-14 Thread Christopher Morrow
looks like ip-echelon's MX's are: 67.43.171.100 - 67.43.171.96/27 67.43.165.163 - 67.43.165.160/27 203.122.134.3 - 122-134-3.dsl.connexus.net.au. ? you could presumably just iptables away (or postfix reject) from those, and then there's this: ;; ANSWER SECTION: ip-echelon.com. 300 IN

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-14 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:20:39 +0200, Randy Bush said: > >> http://www.procmail.org/ > > I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach. There is no > > obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet > > services to them, including SMTP services. > > computers are cheap. my time

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-14 Thread Randy Bush
>> http://www.procmail.org/ > I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach. There is no > obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet > services to them, including SMTP services. computers are cheap. my time is finite and i value it highly. what is the minimal action i c

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-14 Thread Stephen Satchell
On 10/14/2015 03:37 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:12:29PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote: jeezus folk! http://www.procmail.org/ I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach. There is no obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet services to them, inclu

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-14 Thread Rich Kulawiec
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:12:29PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote: > jeezus folk! > > http://www.procmail.org/ I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach. There is no obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet services to them, including SMTP services. A much better move wou

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-14 Thread Randy Bush
jeezus folk! http://www.procmail.org/

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Tony Wicks
> While you are at it you might want to stop sending DMCA notices to Canadian > ISPs. The DMCA does not apply in Canada. If your clients wish to litigate > against > individual residential customers in Canada, you will first need to obtain a > court > order requiring handover of data, on a case-b

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Eric Kuhnke
While you are at it you might want to stop sending DMCA notices to Canadian ISPs. The DMCA does not apply in Canada. If your clients wish to litigate against individual residential customers in Canada, you will first need to obtain a court order requiring handover of data, on a case-by-case basis.

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Scott Weeks
--- s...@ip-echelon.com wrote: If you send the request via this webform or via email to the address specified in the notice... --- Maybe I'm cynical, but... :-) That's one good way to assure your email spam list is of a higher quality. Turn your automated sp

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Christopher Morrow
nt: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:05 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: IP-Echelon Compliance > > Hi All, > > Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes. > > Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice > Recipient Management fo

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Matthew Black
! -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Seth Arnold Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:05 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: IP-Echelon Compliance Hi All, Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes. Expedited processing of your requests is

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Peter Kristolaitis
On 10/13/2015 11:30 AM, Bob Evans wrote: WAIT WAIT - I know the solution to all of this. Let's pass a law that requires everyone to fill out a form to buy a device with a MAC address. Make them wait 10 days to verify the buyer has never committed a digital crime. While law enforcement puts it in

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Jason Hellenthal
RoFLx1000 Srysly! Cluebat who are these people again and why does anyone need them ? #Sigh -- Jason Hellenthal JJH48-ARIN On Oct 13, 2015, at 09:52, s...@ip-echelon.com wrote: Hi Fred, I can’t find your name, email address or the domain-name from your email in our mailboxes. If you send

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Bob Evans
WAIT WAIT - I know the solution to all of this. Let's pass a law that requires everyone to fill out a form to buy a device with a MAC address. Make them wait 10 days to verify the buyer has never committed a digital crime. While law enforcement puts it in a pile forms and pretends they can verify

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Rich Kulawiec
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:17:14AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: > So even when they give an avenue to resolve the issue, people still > complain... *sigh* "Handing over more information" to unrepentant, chronic, systemic spammers (who also happen to be engaged in massive abuse of the DMCA) is not

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Baldur Norddahl
On 13 October 2015 at 16:17, Mike Hammett wrote: > So even when they give an avenue to resolve the issue, people still > complain... *sigh* > IP-Echelon used a faulty automated script to harvest abuse addresses and then expect everyone else to use a manual process to fix their errors, including

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread seth
Hi Fred, I can’t find your name, email address or the domain-name from your email in our mailboxes. If you send the request via this webform or via email to the address specified in the notice, we’ll absolutely jump on it and respond ASAP. I can’t monitor this thread further but please reach o

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Mike Hammett
To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:03:45 AM Subject: Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Seth Arnold writes: > Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes. > > Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient > Management for ISPs

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Fred Hollis
At least, we tried contacting you many times, but you ignored all our requests. Still receiving thousands of e-mails not related to our IPs on daily basis. On 13.10.2015 at 00:04 Seth Arnold wrote: Hi All, Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes. Expedited processing of y

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-13 Thread Bjørn Mork
Seth Arnold writes: > Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes. > > Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient > Management for ISPs section of our website located here: > http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/ >

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-12 Thread Seth Arnold
Hi All, Please feel free to get in touch with us to request changes. Expedited processing of your requests is offered through the Notice Recipient Management for ISPs section of our website located here: http://www.ip-echelon.com/isp-notice-management/

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-10 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > Nothing could possibly go wrong with turning loose a poorly coded software > tool to make automated legal threats in the most litigious nation on earth. you'd think, but they've been doing this for nigh on 8 yrs at least at this point.

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-10 Thread Eric Kuhnke
Nothing could possibly go wrong with turning loose a poorly coded software tool to make automated legal threats in the most litigious nation on earth. On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:00:19PM +0200, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > Do I just block them

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-09 Thread Fred Hollis
Oh, interesting you have the same? We receive thousands of these complains on daily basis that are not related to any of our IPs. Of course we contacted them... but never got a response. On 09.10.2015 at 22:00 Baldur Norddahl wrote: Hi I am sure all of you know of these guys. But what do you

RE: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-09 Thread Matthew Black
If the IP addresses, hostnames, or domain names are not yours, why would you even bother responding? IANAL, I don't think it's your responsibility to direct them to the correct place. Consider an auto-responder directing them to the DMCA page of your corporate website. matthew black california

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-09 Thread Rich Kulawiec
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:00:19PM +0200, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Do I just block them for spamming? Yes, since that's what they're doing. Consider: they're sending email. It's unsolicited (you did not ask for it by confirmed/closed-loop subscription). And it's bulk: these are not individual m

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-09 Thread Sean Donelan
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Christopher Morrow wrote: fairly certian that nothing ip-echelon sends is ever valid... or there's enough 'clearly you are joking' mail from them that anyone who ends up in court for 'ip echelon violations' could simply subpeona their isp for 'other complaints from ip echelon'

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-09 Thread Theodore Baschak
> On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > fairly certian that nothing ip-echelon sends is ever valid... > or there's enough 'clearly you are joking' mail from them that anyone > who ends up in court for 'ip echelon violations' could simply subpeona > their isp for 'other comp

Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

2015-10-09 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Hi > > I am sure all of you know of these guys. But what do you do when they keep > spamming your abuse address with reports for illegal downloads from > IP-addresses that are in no way related to our business? > fairly certian that nothing