May 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

VerizonWireless.com Mail Blacklists
by Crist Clark 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

It appears VerizonWireless.com has some rather aggressive mail filters. Verizon.net's blocking of Europe, Asia, Africa... well, everything but North America has made some headlines and even some lawsuits. Anyone know if VerizonWireless.com and Verizon.net are independent operations from an SMTP point of view? Verizon.net has, http://verizon.net/whitelist And I haven't found an equivalent for VerizonWireless.com. And given the differences in Verizon.net's and VerizonWireless.com's MX setup, I doubt they use common resources. Anyone here ever get off of their blacklist or even know what they are using? Even though we have accounts with them, I haven't been successful in getting through to clueful help *shock*. FWIW, it really looks like an IP-based blacklist. From our main mail server to any of their MX hosts, the 25/tcp connection completes, but then their server drops the connection, no banner, no nothing. I get a banner and can send mail to their servers from other IP addresses outside of that network. My guess is that they're using SPEWS? We're collateral damage in a SPEWS block. -- Crist J. Clark crist.clark(a)globalstar.com Globalstar Communications (408) 933-4387

16 35

Administration Asks Appeals Court To Compel ISP Searches
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 May '05

31 May '05

Worth knowing how this all falls out, methinks. http://www.securitypipeline.com/163702151 - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

3 2

Stanford Hack Exposes 10,000
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 May '05

31 May '05

Yet another unfortunate disclosure... http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163701121 - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

14 14

RE: Administration Asks Appeals Court To Compel ISP Searches
by Chris Ranch 31 May '05

31 May '05

Looks like they want us to turn over customer info without the subpoena, but simply with a phone call (or whatever) from an investigator. I would hope that would be just for specific accounts, and not the entire customer list. In any event, now we're going to have to at least confirm the investigator's identity, whereas currently the sub carries sufficient authority. I don't think you meant to say 'without any specific criminal charges having been filed', as subpoena'd evidence leads to charges. Chris Ranch Affinity Internet, Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On > Behalf Of Jason Frisvold > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:53 AM > To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Administration Asks Appeals Court To Compel ISP Searches > > > On 5/31/05, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) <fergdawg(a)netzero.net> wrote: > > Worth knowing how this all falls out, methinks. > > > > http://www.securitypipeline.com/163702151 > > Am I understanding this correctly? Are they trying to get > ISP's to release all customer information up front without > any sort of legal request? I don't have a problem releasing > information asked for in a subpeona, but to turn over an > entire customer list without any specific criminal charges > having been files is a little much. > > Please tell me I'm misreading this... > > > - ferg > > -- > Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold > XenoPhage0(a)gmail.com >

3 3

RE: Administration Asks Appeals Court To Compel ISP Searches
by Chris Ranch 31 May '05

31 May '05

On May 31, 2005 12:39 PM, Jason Frisvold wrote: > On 5/31/05, Chris Ranch <CRanch(a)affinity.com> wrote: > > Looks like they want us to turn over customer info without the > > subpoena, but simply with a phone call (or whatever) from an > > investigator. I would hope that would be just for specific > accounts, > > and not the entire customer list. In any event, now we're going to > > have to at least confirm the investigator's identity, whereas > > currently the sub carries sufficient authority. > > Ugh.. Ok, so it's a "Hi, I'm an FBI Agent. Gimme info on > Joe Blow and Mary Jane" and I'm supposed to jump and give out > that info... No questions asked... I just reread the article, and realized I got it wrong. There is some paperwork: "The ruling came in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and an Internet access firm that received a national security letter (NSL) from the FBI demanding records." So, the NSL isn't judge or grand jury authorized, just the FBI investigator. > I'm not so opposed to the "don't tell anyone" part. When we > receive a subpeona for a criminal case (as opposed to a civil > case), the subpeona usually states that the subpeona and > information being requested can't be discussed by anyone. > Whereas a civil case allows us to tell the customer if we want to. That's a good question. Has anyone seen an NSL, and/or know if we're gagged? > My problem would be the handing over of information to what > is essentially an unknown party.. That wonderful law would > allow a terrorist or other crook to impersonate an > investigator and gather information.. Do you double-check sups back to the signing judge? Does anyone? Chris Affinity Internet, Inc.

2 1

RE: Administration Asks Appeals Court To Compel ISP Searches
by W. Mark Herrick, Jr. 31 May '05

31 May '05

At 01:54 PM 5/31/2005, Chris Ranch wrote: > > I'm not so opposed to the "don't tell anyone" part. When we > > receive a subpeona for a criminal case (as opposed to a civil > > case), the subpeona usually states that the subpeona and > > information being requested can't be discussed by anyone. > > Whereas a civil case allows us to tell the customer if we want to. > >That's a good question. Has anyone seen an NSL, and/or know if we're >gagged? See Title 18, USC, Section 2709(c) -MH W. Mark Herrick, Jr. Director - Data and Network Security - Adelphia Communications 5619 DTC Parkway, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (O) 303-268-6440 (C) 720-252-5929 (F) 303-268-6687 AIM: AdelphiaSecWMH

1 0

Real usage opinions of arbor networks DDOS and traffic shaping product?
by Drew Weaver 31 May '05

31 May '05

Offlist please, Thanks, -Drew

1 0

Looking for Eastlink Abuse Contact
by Aaron Thomas 30 May '05

30 May '05

Anyone from East Link Cable able to contact me off list. Much appreciated. Cheers, Aaron --- Aaron Thomas Network Engineer Delta Cable Communications v 604.940.3649 c 604.218.0759 f 604.946.5627

1 0

3rd and 4th place horses swap positions
by Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine 30 May '05

30 May '05

Apparently DENIC is more qualified than Afilias to not run the .net registry. http://www.icann.org/tlds/dotnet-reassignment/net-rfp-finalreport-issue4-27…

2 1

Open nominations for Program Committee members
by Steve Feldman 28 May '05

28 May '05

There are currently three vacant positions on the NANOG Program Committee. According to the draft charter[1]: "... the three Program Committee seats vacant as of May 2005 will be filled through appointment by the current committee after an open nomination process." Accordingly, the committee is soliciting nominations for these open positions, from now through Friday, June 10, 2005. ** Procedure ** To nominate yourself or someone else, please send mail to nominate(a)nanogpc.org with the following information, no later than Friday, June 10: - Your name - Nominee's name (if not you) - Nominee's email address - Nominee's phone number - Reasons why you believe the nominee is qualified to serve on the Program Committee. A committee member will contact each of the nominees to verify interest and possibly request additional information. Once all nominations have been received, the committee will begin selecting the three new members from among the nominees. The results will be announced to the nanog-announce list. ** Eligibility ** The draft charter states: "To be eligible to be appointed as a member of the Program Committee, an individual must have attended one NANOG meeting within the prior calendar year (12 months). " ** Duties ** Again quoting the draft charter: "The Program Committee is responsible for motivating/soliciting people to submit interesting talks, selecting the submissions which seem most appropriate (with some attention to presentation skills), and following up with speakers after acceptances to ensure that presentations are completed in time, with ample warning of potential problems with the presentation." "Each member of the Program Committee must review all presentations submitted for each meeting. The Chair may excuse a member from one meeting's review cycle due to extenuating circumstances, but if a member misses two meetings in a row, he or she may be removed from the committee." ** Length of term ** These appointments are temporary (as are those for the rest of the current committee), lasting only until the October 2005 meeting. The draft charter does require that the Steering Committee in forming their first appointed Program Committee, carry forward at least half the current members as of that time. If you have any further questions, please post to the nanog list, contact me directly, or entire committee at nanogpc(a)nanog.org. Finally, on behalf of the Program Committee, I would like to thank our three outgoing members, Barry Raveendran Greene, kc claffy, and Curtis Villamizar, for their years of dedicated service to NANOG and the Internet operations community. Steve Feldman PC Chair [1] The draft charter is available at http://www.nanog.org/charter05.html

1 0