- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: luser of the day award!
by John Fraizer 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

"Thanks to the RBL, email from some idiot known as Alan Bechtold (alanbechtold(a)sysop.com) was bounced by our servers. It is estimated that this raised his blood-pressure only a fraction. However while trying to send email to every RBL site, and having them bounce in chorus, his head exploded from the strain. Thus, we have succeeded in ridding the population of some low-life whose only purpose in life was to suck up oxygen from those of us who actually have a contribution to make to society!" -- Anonymous, yet proud RBL user. ------- John Fraizer | __ _ The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:John.Fraizer@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...

1 0

RE: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by Chris Mauritz 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

Uh huh. Kindly show how I'm abusing your rights if you sign an Acceptable Use Policy, break that policy, and then I cut your connectivity. Also, kindly show how I'd be abusing your rights by deciding that I didn't want to route your traffic over my private link. Don't be bashful. Chris Chris Mauritz Director, Systems Administration Rare Medium, Inc. chrism(a)raremedium.com -----Original Message----- From: Bob Allisat [mailto:bob@fcn.net] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2036 2:13 AM To: Chris Mauritz Cc: 'Karl Denninger'; 'Sheryl Chapin'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Lawsuit threat against RBL users Chris Mauritz writes: > If I am an ISP, I'm free to have whatever AUP I want. IF clients > don't like the AUP, they are free to shop elsewhere. I don't have > the ability to force other ISPs to use my AUP or even a close > facsimile...nor is there is a method to enforce your 1984 vision > anyway. The net is a loose connection of public and private > links. If I own a private link and I decide that I'm going to > route you into /dev/null...that's what I'll do. There isn't a > thing you can do about it. I can lobby government to pass laws protecting my Rights from being abused by commercial interests. Those rights can be included in constitutions and Bills of Rights thereafter extending protections I expect everywhere else to new media and emmerging technologies. Don't Tread on Me... Great motto from the great American Revolution. You remember... the one that secured the rights and freedoms of millions of people and has served as an example to the world, eh? Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob(a)fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

1 0

Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by Paul Vixie 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

scottm(a)ulfus.cs.ucla.edu (Scott Michel) writes: > From reading this list, it doesn't sound like RBL is being used as a > tool to squelch the disenfranchised. I can't say I know Paul Vixie > all that well, but I think he'd be the first to raise a red flag if > RBL was being used as a tool to censor people. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary says of "censor": | 2 : one who supervises conduct and morals: as (a) : an official who | examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter; (b) | : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and | deletes material considered sensitive or harmful So technically I *am* a censor. As to the disenfranchised, well, I'm more interested in the tragedy of the commons than I am in the welfare of the sysop.com guy. But we did suggest that if he was unable or unwilling to disconnect his spammers, he ought to put his spammers on separate web an mail servers (even if only virtually different, i.e., different interface alias addresses) from his non-spammers. We only want to blackhole his spammers, not him personally nor his entire business. He refused on the grounds that we ought not be allowed to dictate his business practices. > Paul only provides a mechanism, so you can't sue him. It's like the > City of Chicago trying to sue the gun makers for aiding and abetting > murder after the fact -- plainly guns don't kill people, people kill > people. Take this analogy a step further: RBL black-holes spam, but > people implement RBL to deal with people sending spam. At the moment there appear to be no grounds for a civil suit, which is too bad -- I'd really like to create some case law since congress is being gutless. The RICO or Sherman stuff is more applicable, and if this sysop.com guy contacts his local DA then he might be able to cause us (MAPS, that is) some trouble. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

1 0

Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
by Paul Vixie 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

keric(a)cyberiron.com (Eric Anderson) writes: > Not to mention being the ultimate DoS: sending out loads of useless > SPAM that appears to come from a competitor, getting them kicked off > their Net. The RBL team has occasionally received and followed up on some spam, traced it back through multiple providers, only to discover that it was forged by a somebody's competitor. We blackholed the real source in those cases, not the forged source. The telephone is a marvelous tool for figuring out what really happened, and our use of the phone is one of the things that makes the RBL so difficult to maintain. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

1 0

Re: Black Hole Vixie/RBL
by Adam D. McKenna 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

Bob, the RBL is a completely voluntary service, and everyone who uses it uses it by choice. If you don't like it, don't use it. Leave the rest of us alone. --Adam -----Original Message----- From: Bob Allisat <bob(a)fcn.net> To: nanog(a)merit.edu <nanog(a)merit.edu> Date: Thursday, November 19, 1998 11:42 AM Subject: Black Hole Vixie/RBL Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> writes + The RBL team and I are kind of wondering what to do about some spam + we got. Because blackholing NSI would be of operational concern to a + lot of you, I've decided to ponder this question out loud: + + >Technically, this is an opt-out customer-relationship spam. + > + > I think it is a special case, because _there is no where else to go_. + > + > 208.226.58.70 should be RBL'ed, IMHO. Help me. Mr. Vixie and his cohorts increasingly imagine themselves to be the final and ultimate arbiters in matters of Network integrity. Having them sit in judgement over the Black Holing of successive and alleged perpetrators violates numerous protections and freedoms all citizens It is my opinion that these activities have reached their zenith and something should be done to finally Black Hole Vixie/RBL should they continue on their renegade mission of uncontrolled and arbitrary censorship. Maybe it is time to pull the plug on the ultimate plug pullers, black hole the black holers! Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob(a)fcn.net . http://fcn.net http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft

1 0

Re: RBL quandry - opinions hereby solicited
by Dean Anderson 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

At 11:20 AM 11/17/1998 -0600, Phil Howard wrote: >Dean Anderson wrote: > >> their customers. Not potential future customers. Existing customers. They >> didn't buy this list from somewhere. They asked for, and required customers >> to give this information, and to give them permission to send email. > >That's not asking for it. That's demanding it. No e-mail ... no domain. >Until NSI does not have an actual monopoly on TLDs, then it is a form of >legalized extortion. You can prove to me otherwise by registering a domain >in a gTLD either w/o giving any addresses. I guess you can register your domains under .US from now on... I hear they have a better policy. By your logic, all business is legalized extortion: "Cisco is the only vendor that has this product I need. But they won't give it to me unless I pay..." I suppose the operative word is LEGALIZED. I've criticized NSI when they deserve criticism. This time, they aren't being unreasonable. Once again, the anti-spammers are going on an extreme, trying to tell NSI that it can't contact its domain registrants to sell them additional domain related services. NSI isn't trying to sell pizza or computers, or toner. They are trying to sell services that are probably of interest to domain registrants, who registered domains with NSI. I don't see what's wrong with that. I've got to wonder if _some_ of the people complaining here are just worried about NSI competing against their own domain/nameservice/bind consulting services. Or perhaps have some other ax to grind. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

NANOG 14 Registration
by Pam Ciesla 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

If you registered and sent in some form of payment for NANOG 14 and want a refund please contact me by December 4, 1998. If you need a copy of receipts include your fax number or mailing address. Note that there is a $35 late cancellation fee. Thanks Pam Pam Ciesla Merit Network,Inc. 734-936-0172 - phone 4251 Plymouth Road 734-647-3185 Bldg.I, Suite C pam(a)merit.edu Ann Arbor, MI 48107

1 0

luser of the day award!
by Christopher Neill 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

Anyone else get mail from this idiot? Alan Bechtold (alanbechtold(a)sysop.com) @ 11/18/1998 12:48 - Original Problem Detail: Dear sir or madam -- =20 It has come to my attention that your company utilizes the MAPS = BLACKHOLE list to block purported SPAMMERS from sending E-mail to your = system. While the idea might sound good I am writing to inform you that = you will be named in a Federal Lawsuit if you do not CEASE AND DESIST = use of this list IMMEDIATELY. =20 Here is why: =20 My company, BBS PRESS SERVICE, INC., designs and hosts Web sites. That's = all we do. We don't sell access to the Internet. We don't sell E-mail = accounts. Besides some E-mail accounts for our employees to use when = contacting our customers, and one E-mail account we use to send out a = weekly newsletter to our customers, we don't generally handle any E-mail = at all. =20 I am anti-SPAM. I advise all of my 5,000+ clients against the use of = SPAM. Still, two have used it to promote sites we host for them. =20 Naturally, this resulted in our receiving the usual barrage of E-mails = DEMANDING that we remove the Web sites of the offending parties. Our = attorneys have advised us that it is NOT in our best interest to do so. = Removing the Web site of anyone for something they did OUTSIDE of our = system, even if it was indeed PROMOTING a site hosted on our system, = would in fact expose my company to possible lawsuit from the SPAMMER! =20 I understand many Web site design and hosting services stipulate in = their contracts that they reserve the right to pull any site if evidence = of SPAMMING is seen -- but my attorneys have also advised me that this = is completely unenforceable in court and wouldn't stand up to a court = challenge. =20 I don't know about you but I am totally opposed to being REQUIRED to = take action against anyone for anything they've done outside of my = control. Do we also want to become liable for pulling Web sites held by = anyone who is convicted of a crime...any crime? Wouldn't this lead to = the requirement of background checks, to make sure a Web site customer = has never indeed beenconvicted of a crime? =20 The ramifications are tremendous. =20 Anyway -- I write to anyone complaining about SPAM from a client of mine = (and they do track down the Web site host even if we didn't originate = the SPAM) and inform them of my position. =20 One person apparently forwarded my reply to MAPS. Even though my reply = states CLEARLY that I am OPPOSED to SPAM, the kind folks at MAPS decided = to add my company's IP to the list anyway. The problem is -- they won't = TALK about resolving the problem. Their "volunteer" hung up on me when I = called, after first being outright surly and rude with me. I tried = E-mailing Paul Vix to tell him to remove my company's IP from his list = but -- guess what -- my E-mail got REJECTED by his system because he = uses the list! I finally got a message through by going through another = provider. Meanwhile Paul Vix has not returned my urgent calls and hasn't = been available on the phone when I do call. =20 This is causing my company irreparable harm. MAPS' whole attitude and = the way they create their so-called LIST is, because of my case alone, = entirely questionable. And he has left me little choice but to file suit = against Paul, MAPS and anyone associated with the LIST or using it in = their products or on their services. =20 This is where you come in. I am writing to tell you right now -- cease = and desist from using the MAPS BLACKHOLE list on your service = IMMEDIATELY. I will be including anyone and everyone still using the = MAPS list in my lawsuit against MAPS. Period. =20 You might also want to contact Paul Vixie and let him know the legal = jeopardy his methods have placed you in. By comparison, the SPAMMERS are = starting to look like the "good guys." I know they're not and you know = they're not but MAPS must end here and now. =20 I would appreciate your comments and cooperation. =20 [Mime entry text/html removed]

13 13

Re: Exodus: this is bad
by shields＠msrl.com 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

In article <19981118150133.28606(a)shell.nacs.net>, "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol(a)nacs.net> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 1998 at 02:14:53PM +0300, Alex P. Rudnev wrote: > > Folks. All (ALL) Linux-based NS servers > > even running bind 8.1.2? Yes, if, as his message continued in the part deleted, you are running an unpatched imapd on the same machine. -- Shields.

2 1

RE: Exodus / Clue problems
by Chris Mauritz 19 Nov '98

19 Nov '98

I think it's important, as a service provider, to promptly inform your customers and affected networks of issues like this. And this isn't just an Exodus issue. There are a number of providers that simply ignore requests for information or are very slow about propagating exploit details quickly enough to matter. While they're not a provider, you can send a detailed exploit to CERT and then wait months before they get around to letting other folks know about the problem. And that's from an entity that supposedly exists to propagate useful information to prevent exploits....In the meantime, affected systems fall like flies. It's fortunate that venues like NANOG and BUQTRAQ are around to disseminate this type of information in a timeframe more useful to us all. And back to the subject matter....I have no doubt that Exodus was working on the problem. It just would have been nice to be informed by *anyone* official there in a timely manner of the problem. That's both from a customer's standpoint, and the Internet at large. Chris Chris Mauritz Director, Systems Administration Rare Medium, Inc. chrism(a)raremedium.com -----Original Message----- From: Steven J. Sobol [mailto:sjsobol@nacs.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 3:07 PM To: Steve Noble Cc: Jay R. Ashworth; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Exodus / Clue problems On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 10:23:46AM -0800, Steve Noble wrote: > that work was/is not being done on the issue. Once Exodus spent the time > assembling and presenting the information to the customer, their job was done. > It is now up to the customer to speak (or not speak) about the issue. I'm not saying Exodus wasn't working on it. I would have just like to hear some confirmation. A one-line message would have been cool. And yes, I think a discussion of how ISP's deal with problems like this is a good idea. -- Steve Sobol [sjsobol(a)nacs.net] Part-time Support Droid [support(a)nacs.net] NACS Spaminator [abuse(a)nacs.net] Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."

5 9