December 1998 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: ** Forged spamming going on
by Dean Anderson 23 Dec '98

23 Dec '98

At 12:59 AM 12/22/1998 -0500, you wrote: >I begin to think you're being _wilfully perverse_ in your >misunderstandings of things people state clearly. Let me clarify things then. First he said he RBL'ed them "in the first 6 months of the RBL". Now they are RBL supporters. Then read the "makes no effort" The so-called "effort" here is really just "cooperation" with Paul Vixie. I'm not the only one concerned about coercion by the RBL. I know I'm not the only one concerned that the use of this coercion is capricious and unpredictable, and changes depending on Paul's moods and own interests. This was demonstrated quite clearly with the abandonment of rules to essentially blackmail NetSol into cooperation. The bottom line is that the RBL is a powerful hammer, and the person in control is inclined to act capriciously without concern for anyone else or even follow his own rules about their "permitted activities" as he originally defined them in the pages on qualification for the RBL. Thats an operational problem. I think we either need to take the hammer away from Paul and give it to someone more even handed and fair about the application of the rules, or stop using the hammer altogether. The latter alternative is unlikely. I have argued in the past that the RBL will not acheive its desired goals. And I don't think it will, or has. But I don't deny it certainly does have effective power to coerce and influence the industry. It can clearly move big players like earthlink and others. I can live by whatever rules as long as they are evenly applied to everyone else. I can't live with a powerful instrument like the RBL which is applied capriciously at Pauls apparent whim. I think others agree with this. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

7 6

Re: AUTORESPONDERS : Gentle Reminder
by George Matey 23 Dec '98

23 Dec '98

At 03:39 PM 12/23/98 +0000, Rich Fulton wrote: >On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Daniel Reed wrote: > >> Actually, this mailing list neither adds in a "Mailing-List: ..." header >> nor a "Precedence: bulk" header, which are the two easiest ways to spot a >> modern mailing list. I'd suggest you complain to the mailing list >> managers, not the poor people whose [most likely] properly configured >> autoresponders aren't being given the information they should be given. > >from the headers...<may be a new addition> > >Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu >Precedence: bulk Its new as of 12/23. Thanks! (to whomever added it). -- George

1 0

christmas quizzy
by Alex "Mr. Worf" Yuriev 23 Dec '98

23 Dec '98

Q: Name a network with a market cap of 62.6B USD where a seniour network engineer calling to follow up on a ticket opened by his/her partner upon being told that "We have checked the connection and are not seeing a problem reaching them. Can you please provide us with additional information such as if you are seeing a complete loss of connectivity, packet loss, huge latency etc or anything else?" replies with "Hmm.. I am not sure I understand you" and up on "We are attempting to determine if they can be running some sort of traffic shaping" says "I am sorry, can I put you on hold? What you are saying is either completely over my head or I am not understanding the problem. I need to find one of my engineers". A: Grrr..... Alex

1 0

Re: AUTORESPONDERS : Gentle Reminder
by Derek Balling 23 Dec '98

23 Dec '98

It is, so I think this thread can now safely die. :) D At 03:39 PM 12/23/98 +0000, Rich Fulton wrote: >On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Daniel Reed wrote: > >> Actually, this mailing list neither adds in a "Mailing-List: ..." header >> nor a "Precedence: bulk" header, which are the two easiest ways to spot a >> modern mailing list. I'd suggest you complain to the mailing list >> managers, not the poor people whose [most likely] properly configured >> autoresponders aren't being given the information they should be given. > >from the headers...<may be a new addition> > >Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu >Precedence: bulk > > > > /rf

1 0

Re: ** Forged spamming going on
by Dean Anderson 23 Dec '98

23 Dec '98

At 02:54 PM 12/22/1998 -0800, George Herbert wrote: >If the rules were bent in the NetSol case, it was bent in >NetSol's favor, not visa versa. Many people don't see it that way. >>The bottom line is that the RBL is a powerful hammer, and the person in >>control is inclined to act capriciously without concern for anyone else or >>even follow his own rules about their "permitted activities" as he >>originally defined them in the pages on qualification for the RBL. > >This opinion is unsupported by evidence. Then you haven't been reading this list for the last month. And you certainly haven't been paying attention for the last year. >You have no more legal or moral >standing to intervene than a fish does, at this point. On that you are right. No one has any rights with Paul. But thats half the problem isn't it. There is no appeal to Paul. No appeals committee that makes sure there isn't some kind of personal vendetta or personal interest or otherwise unfair decision. Thats why we create standards and industry organizations isn't it? Perhaps a ARIN/Internic like organization should be created to run the RBL. Something that doesn't arbitarilly change its rules when it feels like it. Something that permits some recourse if it does. >It is obvious by your repeated unsubstantiated hits on the RBL, >Paul, and the RBL team that you have ulterior motives. >Those underlying motives are fine: healthy skepticism >about net interactions is a good thing. But you aren't >expressing reasonable, healthy criticism. You keep trying >to invent incidents of RBL abuse to justfy making RBL go away. I didn't invent the NetSol incident. I didn't invent the MSN incident last year. Those are operational issues. You keep defending indefensible conduct. It makes me wonder what your motives are. >This is, frankly, tiresome and immature. With the lack of >substantiation, Its you who attack my motives without any substance. I don't have any ulterior motives. I run a small ISP just like many people on this list. I'm rightly concerned about an unpredictable person with a powerful tool which can affect many ISP's operations. Whats tiresome is the continued praise of what are clearly Pauls mistakes. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5 4

Re: ** Forged spamming going on
by William Allen Simpson 23 Dec '98

23 Dec '98

There has been rather a lot of blather in the meantime, but the original message was pretty important. To go back to that, I dug up a posting from the responsible party at ATT from the IETF list. If abuse(a)att.net is not working, then we (and he) should know about it! Did you try abuse, Alex? Did they identify the culprit? Has ngti.com been added to the RBL for relaying faked spam? > From: alex(a)nac.net > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 16:53:26 -0500 (EST) >... > Received: from mailme.com (146.st-louis-71-72rs.mo.dial-access.att.net [12.75.28.146]) > by atom.ntgi.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA23473; > Sat, 19 Dec 1998 23:27:18 -0500 (EST) > (envelope-from You4Me2C(a)mailme.com) >... > AT&T's security dept is non-existent, as far as I am concerned. > < From: "Jonathan Clark" <jhc(a)wnmail.wndev.att.com> < Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 00:46:23 -0500 < Subject: Re: Last Call: Anti-Spam Requirements on an SMTP MTA to BCP < < ... < And as far as I am aware AT&T Worldnet has not < been accused with any evidence of spamming the Internet. Plenty of our users < have been, and when we identify them, we take appropriate action. < < For over a year now I have had requests out on various anti-spam lists, < and I make the same offer in this forum, that if anyone receives mail with < forged headers which appear to implicate AT&T Worldnet for them to please < send it to me, or to our abuse desk. To date I have received exactly two < examples. So I don't know whose headers are being forged, but I have no < evidence that it's ours. < < Also please note that it is a violation of AT&T Worldnet's AUP to use a < mailbox on our service as a response address for a spam, even if the mailing < did not originate with us. < < Sascha (or anyone else), if you feel you have a genuine complaint, please < feel free to contact me directly. However, routine abuse matters should < go directly to abuse(a)att.net, since all I'll do is send them there anyway. < WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

1 0

AOL Shows Its Operational Talents Here Against Spammers!
by Henry Linneweh 23 Dec '98

23 Dec '98

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Along with hotmail.com and concentric.net who have also won on this issue. AOL Takes a Bite Out of Spam http://www.thestandard.com/articles/display/0,1449,2941,00.html?mail By Nancy Weil America Online has won three more lawsuits in its campaign against companies that send unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail, commonly called spam, to AOL subscribers. (December 21, 1998) Henry R. Linneweh -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBNoCSWuBkoZ0XTT12EQLrigCeMcpodiVgW0IDbC95Nvn2y2SOdWEAn0nh E2M2JlsX4eOIoI/K5PK1ptDP =VkoS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Spaming relaying and Port 25 Blocking
by Jeremy Porter 23 Dec '98

23 Dec '98

Has anyone got any operational experience with blocking Port 25 from dialup blocks or instituting a "transparent" proxy system that limits email volume? I will summarize and respect privacy requests regarding information. This looks to be fairly straightfoward to do with NAT/"L4 switch" (I hate that term), such as a Alteon or Foundry. I would like to have something like this in operation by end of Q1 99, but want to minimize or eliminate customer pain. This way anyone running proxies on downstream sites, or dialup farms, would have not excuse to not prevent dialup accounts from sending to relays. Those of you in my .procmailrc need not reply, as I won't see it anyway, as we are completely aware of the legal issues involved and know what we are doing. --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry(a)fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net

1 1

spamming WRT NANOG's mailing list
by Steven J. Sobol 22 Dec '98

22 Dec '98

Guys, If I'm not mistaken, spamming, not generally being an operational issue in the sense of "Sprint is advertising my routes" or "There's been a fiber cut in Chicago", is pretty off-topic. I can point you to some more appropriate places to discuss it. If you're interested, drop me an e-mail. -- Steve Sobol [sjsobol(a)nacs.net] Part-time Support Droid [support(a)nacs.net] NACS Spaminator [abuse(a)nacs.net] Proud resident of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, the coolest place on earth. http://www.ClevelandHeights.com

1 0

Re: SPAM from NetScape and AOL
by Tim Salo 22 Dec '98

22 Dec '98

> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:23:42 -0700 > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > From: "John M. Brown" <jmbrown(a)ihighway.net> > Subject: SPAM from NetScape and AOL > [...] > Looks like NetCenter just got a mailing list from AOL and there > AOL Chat app. > > Thanks AOL for violating my privacy request, > Thanks NetScape for sending me SPAM. > [...] I don't know how things really work under the covers, but your screen name is visible to anyone in the AOL chat room as soon as you enter the room. Do you have some evidence that it was AOL, and not merely some AOL user, (or user's bot) that collected your AOL screen name? -tjs

3 2