Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hello. Well, there is no working server-side solution forXMPP as of now, and today was a first day I used the "doomed to fail" client-side solution: a simple yet effective CAPTCHA-plugin for Gajim. Today was a first day for a long time I haven't received a single spam message. Even Conversati

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

W dniu 02.12.2016, pią o godzinie 11∶11 +0100, użytkownik Florian Schmaus napisał: > > Interestingly it already has an XMPP based implementation. > Where is that implementation? Last seen at  https://web.archive.org/web/20050403182046/http://ngmp.libretech.org/ -- /o__ (_<^' How do you expla

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

W dniu 02.12.2016, pią o godzinie 11∶08 +, użytkownik Matthew Wild napisał: > > There also is an IM2000 proposal [1] > I don't see how this is any better than rate limits on the sending > side. It's not like a spammer will need to store 1000 copies of > the same message to send it to 10

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

On 2 December 2016 at 10:04, Tomasz Sterna wrote: > W dniu 19.11.2016, sob o godzinie 15∶19 +0300, użytkownik A napisał: >> Very easy. Popular clients just incorporated simple anti-spam >> measures to perform human-testing for any new senders. > There also is an IM2000 proposal [1] which does it

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hello, > On 19 Nov 2016, at 21:00, A wrote: > > Hello, Mickaël. Will this reputation system work for disposable accounts, > automatically created and used to send just one SPAM/SPIM message? Yes, I think so. If we consider your account reputation increase with age. We can define a new account

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

On 02.12.2016 11:04, Tomasz Sterna wrote: > Interestingly it already has an XMPP based implementation. Where is that implementation? - Florian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

W dniu 19.11.2016, sob o godzinie 15∶19 +0300, użytkownik A napisał: > Very easy. Popular clients just incorporated simple anti-spam > measures to perform human-testing for any new senders. Any solution that puts the burden of fighting SMAP on the users and keeps the SPAM sending cost at zero is d

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hey everyone. This is kind of a follow up to the topic. Today I've noticed thatGajim's plugin "Anti Spam" got update to the version 0.4.2. I thought it was a trivial bugfix, but hey, now it offers a much needed custom question/answer feature! It may still not be a solution "how spam should be

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hello, I announced today a project I had in mind since last July, which aims at helping XMPP server operators fight spam in a *proper* way. The project is called Providence, and aims at being a generic daemon that can be plugged to any XMPP server via a server module. Works similarly to SpamAs

Re: [Operators] spam

On 19 November 2016 at 12:52, David Banes wrote: > How about following the very large email providers lead and do something like > this; > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC > https://dmarc.org/2016/02/how-can-i-tell-who-is-using-dmarc/ As other point out, DMARC is about address spoofing, and

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

On 19 November 2016 at 13:27, Krzysztof Grochocki wrote: > Hello. > > Over the past year I received spam message only in russian language or in > russian and english language together. I think we can block such messages > like it is in one of polish IM - just block incoming/outgoing messages where

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hello, Mickaël. Will this reputation system work for disposable accounts, automatically createdand used to send just one SPAM/SPIM message? On 11/19/2016 08:03 PM, Mickaël Rémond wrote: Hi, On 19 Nov 2016, at 13:19, A mailto:a...@creep.im>> wrote: Hey everyone. The spam problem persists and

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

I can't believe what I'm reading... So we went from the usual "it can be bypassed" excuse to not employ any SPIM mitigation to "let's leave IBR the way it is it's the client which should deal with it". I'm simply speechless at this rate. Il 19/11/2016 13:19, A ha scritto: Hey everyone. The

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hi, > On 19 Nov 2016, at 13:19, A wrote: > > Hey everyone. > > The spam problem persists and it gets worse and worse each consecutive day, > but seems like nobody actually can or wants to do anything. All the anti-spam > measures discussed here in this list are a mere blocking of spam JIDs or

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:00:47 +0300 A wrote: > Okay, then I misunderstood you. Could you elaborate a bit how it's > fought in 2016 (that can be applied to XMPP of course, not just > outlining some measures implemented in centralized proprietary > protocols)? Well, my vision is described in XEP-028

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

I constantly being contacted by legitimate strangers, which ask me something about the service for example, so this is not the solution. On 11/19/2016 04:59 PM, Yonnji wrote: There is a "privacy list" feature in Gajim. It allows you to block people which is not in your contact list. On 19/

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Okay, then I misunderstood you. Could you elaborate a bit how it's fought in 2016 (that can be applied to XMPP of course, not just outlining some measures implemented in centralized proprietary protocols)? On 11/19/2016 04:58 PM, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: No:) As I said, that's not how SPAM is

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Sat, 19 Nov 2016 14:55:48 +0100 Krzysztof Grochocki wrote: > > As a Russian developer of ejabberd I think this is a great idea. > > Probably, adding Polish to the list won't hurt as well. > > Oh take it easy, this was only na idea for spam that we have... > Personally I don't see anything wron

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

There is a "privacy list" feature in Gajim. It allows you to block people which is not in your contact list. On 19/11/16 16:55, Krzysztof Grochocki wrote: > As a Russian developer of ejabberd I think this is a great idea. > Probably, adding Polish to the list won't hurt as well. Oh take it ea

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:45:12 +0300 A wrote: > Hello. Well, seems like XEP-0158 is exactly what I'm describing. So > now we just need to persuade popular client/plugins developers to > support it, right? No :) As I said, that's not how SPAM is being fought in 2016.

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

> As a Russian developer of ejabberd I think this is a great idea. > Probably, adding Polish to the list won't hurt as well. Oh take it easy, this was only na idea for spam that we have... Personally I don't see anything wrong in such module that would work only for contacts that we don't have on

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Sat, 19 Nov 2016 14:27:37 +0100 Krzysztof Grochocki wrote: > Maybe someone can write such functionality as module for > ejabberd and prosody? As a Russian developer of ejabberd I think this is a great idea. Probably, adding Polish to the list won't hurt as well.

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hello. Well, seems like XEP-0158 is exactly what I'm describing. So now we just need to persuade popular client/plugins developers to support it, right? On 11/19/2016 04:40 PM, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:53:53 +0100 Marvin Gülker wrote: I like the general idea, but the prot

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Sat, 19 Nov 2016 13:53:53 +0100 Marvin Gülker wrote: > I like the general idea, but the protocol (not the questions > themselves obviously) should be standardised into a XEP so that not > every client creates its own idea of how to do it. You should suggest > it on the xmpp-standards mailinglist.

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hello. I didn't consider to suggest it in a XEP form. This seems viable. Will do when I have some spare time. On 11/19/2016 03:53 PM, Marvin Gülker wrote: Hi, On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 03:19:34PM +0300, A wrote: How do this problem was solved back in 2000s? Very easy. Popular clients just incor

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hey Krzysztof. I can't imagine more nazi-er thing to do than to ban some scripts implying that this is the primary writing script to spam. On 11/19/2016 04:27 PM, Krzysztof Grochocki wrote: Hello. Over the past year I received spam message only in russian language or in russian and english la

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hello. Over the past year I received spam message only in russian language or in russian and english language together. I think we can block such messages like it is in one of polish IM - just block incoming/outgoing messages where is Cyrillic characters in text. At this time it's only the one way

Re: [Operators] spam

On 2016-11-19 14:05, Matthew Wild wrote: > On 19 November 2016 at 12:52, David Banes wrote: >> How about following the very large email providers lead and do something >> like this; >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC >> https://dmarc.org/2016/02/how-can-i-tell-who-is-using-dmarc/ > > DMAR

Re: [Operators] spam

Sat, 19 Nov 2016 12:52:02 + David Banes wrote: > How about following the very large email providers lead and do > something like this; > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC > https://dmarc.org/2016/02/how-can-i-tell-who-is-using-dmarc/ I'm not a SPAM expert, but Wikipedia says it's about

Re: [Operators] spam

On 19 November 2016 at 12:52, David Banes wrote: > How about following the very large email providers lead and do something like > this; > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC > https://dmarc.org/2016/02/how-can-i-tell-who-is-using-dmarc/ DMARC prevents spoofing (e.g. spammers sending email fro

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hi, On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 03:19:34PM +0300, A wrote: > How do this problem was solved back in 2000s? Very easy. Popular clients > just incorporated simple anti-spam measures to perform human-testing for any > new senders. Client just asked every new sender to answer simple > (customizable) quest

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

You have good points. Yes, there is something which has to be changed. But if you want an anti-spam function in clients, preventing spammers from creating new accounts, it will be lost from the start. XMPP is, as you said, opensource. Lets say the ne

Re: [Operators] spam

How about following the very large email providers lead and do something like this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC https://dmarc.org/2016/02/how-can-i-tell-who-is-using-dmarc/ David. On 19 Nov 2016, at 12:36, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > Sat, 19 Nov 2016 11:52:54 +0100 > JC Brand wrote: >

Re: [Operators] spam

Sat, 19 Nov 2016 11:52:54 +0100 JC Brand wrote: > I disagree that it's pointless. I've seen JIDs posted recently for > well known domains of which some of their operators are on this list. Of course some of them could be found here, that's why I used words 'typically' and 'almost'. Don't get me

[Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

Hey everyone. The spam problem persists and it gets worse and worse each consecutive day, but seems like nobody actually can or wants to do anything. All the anti-spam measures discussed here in this list are a mere blocking of spam JIDs or even whole domains. But this will not mitigate the

Re: [Operators] spam

Ah, 15/11. That was before it got blocked. On 19 Nov 2016 13:10, "Arsimael Inshan" wrote: > Hi, here is the whole message: > > (*15.11.2016* 12:17:00) reagans...@igniterealtime.org/gk4oJn: > > Куплю ваши базы сс, cvv. > контакт - (Jid): gidroslo...@0nl1ne.at > > Bu

Re: [Operators] spam

Hi, here is the whole message: (*15.11.2016* 12:17:00) reagans...@igniterealtime.org/gk4oJn: Куплю ваши базы сс, cvv. контакт - (Jid): gidroslo...@0nl1ne.at Buy your bases ss, cvv. Contact - (Jid): gidroslo...@0nl1ne.at

Re: [Operators] spam

I'm an operator for igniterealtime.org. The reagans318 account had already been blocked, so I'm a little surprised that it is still sending spam. When exactly did that account spam you? Regards, Guus On 19 November 2016 at 12:21, Arsimael Inshan wrote: > Oh, by the way: > > I am also receivi

Re: [Operators] spam

Hi, * psjbeisler [2016-11-18 20:05]: > just want to mention ive been getting spam from the following JIDs, > all in russian, trying to get me to buy stuff. > just as a PSA if nothing else, if youre the admin please advise, im sure > theres more. I've deployed the following mod_firewall rules in

Re: [Operators] spam

Oh, by the way: I am also receiving a huge ammount of spam: 7...@lih.im/sLKICAx 4...@jclub.pw/MkU09m3a tat...@jabber.co.za/199Rp reagans...@igniterealtime.org/gk4oJn 3...@sync-hv.de/CstBKDM 3...@lih.im/NOqeok 2...@lih.im/xsWJcaD 1...@jabb

Re: [Operators] spam

I supervise all registrations on my server. Since I optimized the registration process Spambot registrations dropped nearly completely. Here is what I did: Deactivate Inbound registration Activated Captcha request on webregistration Deleting all

Re: [Operators] spam

Am 19. November 2016 07:52:06 MEZ, schrieb Evgeny Khramtsov : >Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:00:54 -0500 >psjbeisler wrote: > >> just want to mention ive been getting spam from the following JIDs, >> all in russian, trying to get me to buy stuff. >> just as a PSA if nothing else, if youre the admin pleas

Re: [Operators] spam

Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:00:54 -0500 psjbeisler wrote: > just want to mention ive been getting spam from the following JIDs, > all in russian, trying to get me to buy stuff. > just as a PSA if nothing else, if youre the admin please advise, im > sure theres more. > > 5854@ jabber.algebra20.de > > 58

[Operators] spam

just want to mention ive been getting spam from the following JIDs, all in russian, trying to get me to buy stuff. just as a PSA if nothing else, if youre the admin please advise, im sure theres more. 5854@ jabber.algebra20.de 589@ xmpp.svnet.fr 6901@ xmpp.svnet.fr -- The Internet is changing,

[Operators] Spam from xmppspam.space

Hi, I had a few spam registrations on my XMPP server today. They came from a russian IP address: 252-201-36-78.baltnet.ru Usernames: ejineege30@ daviegril46@ divinesoul11@ confessor@ I've enabled message logging on my server then and found out that confessor@ started to spam using the commercia

Re: [Operators] Spam/flood report (44 servers involved)

Sorry, my last mail was not supposed to go to the list.

Re: [Operators] Spam/flood report (44 servers involved)

Hi! Matthew Wild wrote: On a related note I've been working on a project to allow secure web registration for all public servers that opt in. It's nearing completion, and I would like to start beta testing soon. I'm looking for a few initial servers to start with. If you are a public server adm

[Operators] Spam/flood report (44 servers involved)

Hi folks, Last night we had someone attempt to flood the Prosody chatroom. Our rate limiting kicked in and logged all the JIDs for us, so no real harm was caused to us. That said, I know that some of the originating servers crashed during the flooding, and another server that was a victim of flood

Re: [Operators] spam resistance

On Fri, 24 May 2013, Dave Cridland wrote: [...] I think email was different for three reasons: 1) Email came about mostly before the Internet took off - indeed, there's an argument that the Internet expansion was driven by email, not the other way around. This placed restrictions on how email

Re: [Operators] spam resistance

24 maj 2013 kl. 11:00 skrev Dave Cridland : > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Peter Saint-Andre > wrote: > On 5/23/13 4:50 PM, Justin Uberti wrote: > > I just realized my statement could be parsed 2 different ways. To > > be clear: it is sad that spammers were more willing to adopt > > XMPP*t

Re: [Operators] spam resistance

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 5/23/13 4:50 PM, Justin Uberti wrote: > > I just realized my statement could be parsed 2 different ways. To > > be clear: it is sad that spammers were more willing to adopt > > XMPP*than other IM networks were willing to*. Believe me,

Re: [Operators] spam resistance

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 5/23/13 4:50 PM, Justin Uberti wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Dave Cridland > wrote: > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Justin Uberti > mailto:jube...@google.com>> wrote: > > That seems like an overly cy

Re: [Operators] spam resistance (was: Re: google abandoning XMPP??)

On 23 May 2013 23:50, Justin Uberti wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Justin Uberti >> wrote: >>> >>> That seems like an overly cynical assessment of the situation. Speaking >>> as an individual, it is sad that spammers were

Re: [Operators] spam resistance (was: Re: google abandoning XMPP??)

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:50:19 PM Justin Uberti wrote: > I just realized my statement could be parsed 2 different ways. To be clear: > it is sad that spammers were more willing to adopt XMPP* than other IM > networks were willing to*. Believe me, we tried. Other IM networks continue to use XMP

Re: [Operators] spam resistance (was: Re: google abandoning XMPP??)

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Justin Uberti wrote: > >> That seems like an overly cynical assessment of the situation. Speaking >> as an individual, it is sad that spammers were more willing to adopt XMPP >> than other IM networks, but

Re: [Operators] Spam Registrations

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 5/23/13 10:57 AM, Alex Hanselka wrote: > On 5/23/2013 10:22 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: >> The best advice I can give is not to allow unprotected (i.e. >> without a captcha or similar) inband registration, as people use >> scripts to autoregister account

Re: [Operators] Spam Registrations

On 5/23/2013 10:22 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > The best advice I can give is not to allow unprotected (i.e. without a > captcha or similar) inband registration, as people use scripts to > autoregister accounts across many servers using IBR. If you require > registration through a web page with captcha

Re: [Operators] Spam Registrations

On 23 May 2013 11:15, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > At jabber.org, we turned off in-band registration and forced all users > to register via https://register.jabber.org/ with CAPTCHA required. > That did not really prevent spam registrations (at one point we had > over 10,000 users that we suspected

Re: [Operators] Spam Registrations

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > There are also likely options along these lines that involve less > privacy invasion than operators manually examining the accounts. A > captcha for every subscription request? Only one outstanding (not > reciprocated) roster request at a time

Re: [Operators] Spam Registrations

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > I know that this proposal is kind of dangerous as it requires > introspection of the users messages. > > But how about this: After registration, the users is put on a > surveillance list, for like a few days or weeks. She shall be notified >

Re: [Operators] Spam Registrations

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 5/23/13 9:28 AM, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > I know that this proposal is kind of dangerous as it requires > introspection of the users messages. > > But how about this: After registration, the users is put on a > surveillance list, for like a few da

Re: [Operators] Spam Registrations

I know that this proposal is kind of dangerous as it requires introspection of the users messages. But how about this: After registration, the users is put on a surveillance list, for like a few days or weeks. She shall be notified about this, in the Terms of service and possibly by a system tool

Re: [Operators] Spam Registrations

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 5/23/13 9:22 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Alex Hanselka > wrote: >> Do you guys have any tips for spam registrations for open >> servers? I'm running one that eventually I'll add back to the >> list on xmpp.net but befo

Re: [Operators] Spam Registrations

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Alex Hanselka wrote: > Do you guys have any tips for spam registrations for open servers? I'm > running one that eventually I'll add back to the list on xmpp.net but before > I do I wanted some tips on this :) The best advice I can give is not to allow unprotected

Re: [Operators] Spam Registrations

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 5/23/13 1:39 AM, Alex Hanselka wrote: > Heya! > > Do you guys have any tips for spam registrations for open servers? > I'm running one that eventually I'll add back to the list on > xmpp.net but before I do I wanted some tips on this :) > > Thanks

Re: [Operators] spam resistance

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 5/23/13 3:20 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > Google's was exasperated Exacerbated? But our Google friends were probably exasperated, too. > not by simply allowing federation, but by allowing largely > unauthenticated federation, making it by far the w

Re: [Operators] spam resistance (was: Re: google abandoning XMPP??)

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Justin Uberti wrote: > That seems like an overly cynical assessment of the situation. Speaking as > an individual, it is sad that spammers were more willing to adopt XMPP than > other IM networks, but so it goes. > I'm not sure sufficient information exists in o

Re: [Operators] spam resistance (was: Re: google abandoning XMPP??)

On 23 May 2013 00:35, Justin Uberti wrote: > That seems like an overly cynical assessment of the situation. Speaking as > an individual, it is sad that spammers were more willing to adopt XMPP than > other IM networks, but so it goes. To pick on that last point - it's just not true. Other network

[Operators] Spam Registrations

Heya! Do you guys have any tips for spam registrations for open servers? I'm running one that eventually I'll add back to the list on xmpp.net but before I do I wanted some tips on this :) Thanks for any insight! Alex

Re: [Operators] spam resistance

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Justin, thanks for weighing in. On 5/22/13 5:35 PM, Justin Uberti wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Peter Saint-Andre > mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im>> wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > > On 5/22/13 2:40 PM, Jes

Re: [Operators] spam resistance (was: Re: google abandoning XMPP??)

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 5/22/13 2:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote: > > On 5/22/2013 10:02 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 5/22/13 8:52 AM, > > Jesse Thompson wrote: > Google failed to note the correlation o

[Operators] spam resistance (was: Re: google abandoning XMPP??)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 5/22/13 2:40 PM, Jesse Thompson wrote: > On 5/22/2013 10:02 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 5/22/13 8:52 AM, > Jesse Thompson wrote: Google failed to note the correlation of the drop in federated XMPP connections with the fact that Google

Re: [Operators] Spam attack going on on the XMPP network

On 07.09.2011 23:36, naw wrote: Hello I have seen an automated attack on several rooms. A bot connects and sends this private message: "Hi! I would like to present you a phone flooder - FlooSIP. For details in ICQ: XX" It has connected from random accounts on different servers but it seem

Re: [Operators] Spam attack going on on the XMPP network

On Miércoles 07 septiembre 2011 10:33:07 Peter Saint-Andre escribió: > On 9/7/11 7:36 AM, naw wrote: > > Hello > > > > I have seen an automated attack on several rooms. > > > > A bot connects and sends this private message: > > "Hi! I would like to present you a phone flooder - FlooSIP. For detai

Re: [Operators] Spam attack going on on the XMPP network

On 9/7/11 7:36 AM, naw wrote: > Hello > > I have seen an automated attack on several rooms. > > A bot connects and sends this private message: > "Hi! I would like to present you a phone flooder - FlooSIP. For details in > ICQ: XX" > > It has connected from random accounts on different serve

[Operators] Spam attack going on on the XMPP network

Hello I have seen an automated attack on several rooms. A bot connects and sends this private message: "Hi! I would like to present you a phone flooder - FlooSIP. For details in ICQ: XX" It has connected from random accounts on different servers but it seems to share the resource name "ja