January 1997 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting
by Bill Woodcock 20 Jan '97

20 Jan '97

Mike Leber <mleber(a)he.net> writes: > Using "ask to be taken off their list" as an indicator indicates > a naive understanding of how serious spam servers (for lack of a > better term) operate. > The primary reason that a well written spam includes a way "to > get off the list" are it gives recipients an action to take, > thus reducing complaints. > You can ask to be removed from the scam artist's lists all you > want, but you will never be removed from the spam server's > master list. I can confirm this. The reply-to address of a good deal of the spam out there is <someusername>@domain.com, the example address, so the "remove-request" just gets a reply from the example address mailbot and is then trashed. We're currently seeing about 20mb/day of these misaddressed remove-requests. -Bill

1 0

Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting
by ALAN DORN HETZEL JR 20 Jan '97

20 Jan '97

Paul, If I install blackhole routing like this, will I SYN bomb myself if I get lots of incoming packets from these addresses and can't respond to them? Would I be better of to filter all INCOMING packets FROM these networks inbound to my network? -Dorn

2 1

NANOG 9 Registration Deadline
by Warren K. Williams 20 Jan '97

20 Jan '97

Folks, I've been in contact with the Grand Hyatt in San Francisco. They've extended the deadline for reservations until the 27th of January, for any of those who still need to make a reservation. Kind regards, Warren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Warren K. Williams, Director - Network Access Point Pacific Bell Business Communications Services Email: wkwilli(a)pacbell.com Phone: 510.867.9065 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Suggestion for NANOG Meeting
by Eric D. Madison 20 Jan '97

20 Jan '97

One topic that really needs to be addressed is the responsibility of the carriers on Email Spamming by customers. Should the carrier disconnect a customer that continues to send unsolicited emails even after a individual or group asks to be taken off their distribution lists. As a carrier, we at ACSI have issued a statement that we cannot be responsible for customer traffic. I know that legally we cannot filter any customer traffic, but I am really getting sick of getting emails about customers that continue to send unsolicited emails. We as a community need to come up with a common carrier policy on how to handle such customers and how to deal with complaints. If anyone else is sick of this, please let me know so maybe we can have this brought up as a topic of discussion in San Fran. Eric _______________________________________________________ Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc(a)acsi.net

9 12

Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting
by Stephen Sprunk 20 Jan '97

20 Jan '97

There is a difference between unsolicited email and a denial-of-service attack, both in the effects, and the necessary response. The main issue I see here is whether or not transit providers are going to become "common carriers", such as telephone and shipping companies. This means (as it applies here) that you are not liable for any content that you carry. The only way you can deny access is with appropriate local legal action (whatever that may be). The downside is that you cannot filter spam, porn, or any other distasteful traffic. I believe emergency measures, such as cutting off a site SYN flooding, or cutting the pair to a customer's house, etc., is allowed, but a permanent solution needs legal action. I believe that the net is headed in the common carrier direction, which means we must find a better way to stop spam than denying routes. This is the flip side to Universal Access; you cannot have good without having bad. Stephen Sprunk PS- I'm not a lawyer blah blah blah. At 10:02 20 01 97 -0800, you wrote: > >On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Eric D. Madison wrote: >> As a carrier, I know that we should not and can not filter/censor/monitor >> any content on our "pipes". > >So you would ignore one of your customers SYN attacking random victims on >the net? Or one of your T3 customers ping bombing somebody with a T1? > >There already is precedent for deal with abuse.

1 0

NANOG Meeting Registration
by Pam Ciesla 20 Jan '97

20 Jan '97

The attendee list on the web page has been updated. If you have registered already and are planning on faxing, mailing or calling in your payment info please do so as soon as possible. This will help to defer any delays at the meeting. Thanks Pam

1 0

Romanian Hacker makes the local news for hacking NASA, Pentagon, and USAF systems
by Chris A. Icide 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

It's not much, but seems it's getting more and more news in Europe. Take a peek. http://www.expres.ro/press/evzilei/english/Welcome.htm#miscellaneous Chris

1 0

Re: A New Spawning...
by Bill Woodcock 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

Robert Mathews <mathews(a)gold.chem.hawaii.edu> writes: > For those of you who have not see this, I include the following > Bogus Messages Snarling the 'Net > http://techweb.cmp.com/cw/cwi/netnews/011397/news0117-4.html "For example, Viacom Inc. is working to ensure acceptable access-speed levels for its Web sites' visitors through special service arrangements with its ISP, Uunet..." Wow! I wanna hire the UUnet sales guy that dreamed that up! Wow. "Sign here, it'll make all your Internet access problems go away!" :-) -Bill ______________________________________________________________________________ bill woodcock woody(a)zocalo.net woody(a)nowhere.loopback.edu user(a)host.domain.com

1 0

A New Spawning...
by Robert Mathews 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

Hello All: For those of you who have not see this, I include the following for your examination and critique. It reads as follows: Bogus Messages Snarling the 'Net http://techweb.cmp.com/cw/cwi/netnews/011397/news0117-4.html By JEFF CARUSO and AMY ROGERS Experiencing Internet delays? You can probably feel safe blaming the Net. Best, Robert. -------

1 0

Re: Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
by Vadim Antonov 19 Jan '97

19 Jan '97

>> Well, AS 666 is owned by the ARMY Weapons Systems Test Center. >And they actually *do* have lots of black helicopters, too, but >I digress. >- paul Ah, kidding. Have you ever seen a live communist? For me, that stuff is all too real. Taking some vacations in North Korea would be a nice cure for infantilism. The technology we're playing with lost it virginity years ago, and it is our duty to remember than it can be an immensely powerful tool in politics and military. We're not in a sandbox anymore. --vadim

5 4