- Test - lists.nanog.org

ISP wants to stop outgoing web based spam
by Hank Nussbacher 11 Aug '06

11 Aug '06

Back in 2002 I asked if anyone had a solution to block or rate limit outgoing web based spam. Nothing came about from that thread. I have an ISP that *wants* to stop the outgoing spam on an automatic basis and be a good netizen. I would have hoped that 4 years later there would be some technical solution from some hungry startup. Perhaps I have missed it. What I have found so far is: Detecting Outgoing Spam and Mail Bombing http://www.brettglass.com/spam/paper.html SMTP based mitigation - thing on HTTP/HTTPS Stopping Outgoing Spam http://research.microsoft.com/~joshuago/outgoingspam-final-submit.pdf Research paper - nothing practical Throttling Outgoing SPAM for Webmail Services http://www.ceas.cc/papers-2005/164.pdf Research paper - nothing practical ISPs look inward to stop spam - Network World http://www.networkworld.com/news/2004/071204carrispspam.html Bottom line - no solution So I am trying once again. Hopefully someone has some magic dust this time around. Thanks, Hank Nussbacher http://www.interall.co.il

8 14

Unique BGP Regular Communities
by John Smith 11 Aug '06

11 Aug '06

Hi, When the providers choose communities do they follow the syntax AS_NUM:X, where X is some number to ensure uniqueness of their particular community? The reason i ask this is because if operators are doing this then they need not worry that the community being used by them would not be used by anybody anywhere in the world. I am wondering if it can _ever_ happen that i get to recieve a BGP UPDATE carrying a community number that i use inside my AS? Is this possible? And if Yes, then what scenario? Thanks, John

2 1

weblog.disgu.st
by Bug Dave 11 Aug '06

11 Aug '06

could someone please shed some light on what happened to http:// weblog.disgu.st ?

2 1

Experiences with Citrix Load Balancing products?
by Michael Loftis 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Anyone used them? Good? Bad? Ugly? I don't know a lot about their products but I know they're new to the market compared to some of their competition. Seems they're buzzword compliant but I could care less about that, I'm really curious how they work in the real world. E-mails off list and I can summarize, or we can just have it out on the list (I'd rather the latter, I think this is relevant). Talking with someone in their engineering or sales group but it sounds....like a lot of impossibly big claims in terms of concurrent sessions, throughput, and who's using them. TIA

1 1

Re: SORBS Contact
by Matthew Sullivan 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

I'll post this back to NANOG as others are likely to comment similar ways... Michael J Wise wrote: > On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote: > >> This is also why I took the time to create: >> >> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-sc…> >> > > Seems like it specifies a bit TOO much detail, but. This is why it says that it is a suggestion and indicated that the level of detail you choose to use is upto you, however if you adopt some of the more specific detail you should use the less specific detail. ie if you follow it you should as a minimum specify static/dynamic. If you want to add more detail like service type, that is your choice, but you shouldn't specify the service types (eg wifi) without specifying static/dynamic (does that make sense?). Also it should be noted that it is a 'suggested naming scheme for generic records' and therefore not intended to be mandatory, further it says you should indicate the hostname of the machine in preference to generic records. The idea being a common but extensible naming scheme for organisations want to specify generic/generated records rather than go to the hassle of creating individual records for each customer/host. Regards, Mat

8 8

Re: SORBS Contact
by Scott Weeks 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

----- Original Message Follows ----- From: Allan Poindexter <apoindex(a)aoc.nrao.edu> > this is fine. If you have agreed to participate in the > Internet you have an obligation to deliver your traffic. No you don't. They're your property. You bought them and you can do anything you want with them. You could deliver one packet in a million if you chose to do so. Nothing'd work and no one would sign up for your service, but you could do it if you wanted to. scott

1 0

Contact for optonline.net routing?
by David Hubbard 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Anyone have a contact for optonline? Thanks, David

1 0

SORBS / Spam / RBLs / whatever
by Matt Ghali 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

guys, seriously, stop feeding the troll. --matt(a)snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin>< Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity. - Marshall McLuhan

1 0

SORBS Contact
by Brian Boles 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here.... My most recent allocation from ARIN turned out to be dirty IP's, and I'm having trouble getting them removed following the steps on their website (no action on tickets opened). 64.79.128.0/20 Brian Boles vegasnetman(a)gmail.com

10 16

Re: ISP wants to stop outgoing web based spam
by Allan Poindexter 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

>>>>> John Levine <nanog(a)johnlevine.com> writes: Allan> I would let any ISP I use make this mistake once. After that Allan> the individuals responsible would be up on ECPA charges. John> I suppose any ISP foolish enough not to disclaim ECPA John> confidentiality gets what it deserves. The ECPA doesn't provide any mechanism to explicitly disclaim responsibility under it. Even if it did such a disclaimer would undermine any claim to anything like common carrier status for an ISP This would make the ISP vulnerable to such things as libel based on user's content. This strikes me as jumping out of the spam/virus frying pan into the defamation fire.

2 2