- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

23 Dec '98

At 12:08 PM 12/23/1998 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote: >So what you are saying is that with marked increase in people getting on >the Internet since the time that the RBL was created, that you haven't >seen an increase in spam volume? I think most reasonable would consider >that at least a marginal success in containment. Volume as been argued previous on other venues, is exactly the same issue as used in the 70's against bulk postal mailers: 'If it isn't banned you'll be literally buried by junk mail.' Well, actually, there are market constraints on the volume of (postal or email) mail totally independent and unrelated to the RBL. Economics and psychology control the volume. And the economics aren't related much to the cost. Spam costs less than direct mail which costs less than radio, which is less than TV. There are saturation points which aren't related to the system capacity to deliver advertising. So no matter what the system capacity, you aren't ever going to be overwhelmned by advertising. But for some, any is too much. Those people are generally categorized as being on the fringe. RBL hasn't really contained anything. Except cause pain to ISP's who get caught in the crossfire. >> A gun has effective power too. Except that it should be used by Police >> Officers to stop crime, and not by random vigilantes to shoot whomever they >> please and ask questions later. > >It is heartening to see someone with such a high regard for the >governments abilities in this area. Here I was labouring under the >misconception that the government has been largely ignorant in these >matters and ineffective in addressing them. Thanks for clearing that up >for me. Well, its people like Vixie who abuse their power and abilities that make it necessary for governments to intervene. I would hope that the industry could police itself. But it doesn't seem to be able to come up with an alternative other than a single capricious individual. There used not be any gun laws either. Not that spammers are in any way faultless. Certainly not. But as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right. >> And like any powerful tool, there should be some responsibility for its use >> and misuse. Paul has none. > >A lot of reasonable people would disagree with you. Reasonable people who support power without responsibility? I doubt it, except they are the ones trying to wield the power. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

poll: are any sizable exchange points using gigabit ether?
by k claffy 23 Dec '98

23 Dec '98

or are folks pretty much (ATM?)-switch tech'ed? or do folks have plans to migrate to gig ether (or to definitely Not to, for some reason?) (or change 'gig ether' to some other imminent.technology.that.might.be. compelling.enuf.to.displace.atm) if u wanna send messages 2 me i'll compile/post to save b/w (which presumably saves much more b/w if am posting via atm switches but etc) k

7 6

NANOG 15
by Pam Ciesla 23 Dec '98

23 Dec '98

Update on hotel info. I spoke with the people at the Hyatt in Denver. The Hyatt is full during the NANOG Meeting. If you are planning on attending make hotel reservations early. The NANOG hotel block is available until January 8. Also for those registering with credit card info. Credit cards will not be run until late January and receipts will be available at the meeting in your name badges. The nanog-support staff will be off for the holidays (possible checking e-mail), back in the office on 1/4/99. Have a safe and happy holiday. See you at NANOG 15 next year. 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

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