- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

Re: ** Forged spamming going on
by George Herbert 22 Dec '98

22 Dec '98

Dean Anderson <dean(a)av8.com> >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. If the rules were bent in the NetSol case, it was bent in NetSol's favor, not visa versa. Added tolerance in the system rather than added rigidity is almost always a positive step, and was in this case. >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. >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. Which "we", Kemo Sabe? "we" have nothing to say about it. It's entirely between Paul and the RBL user community. They can always stop using it if Paul goes nuts. And undoubtedly would. You have no more legal or moral standing to intervene than a fish does, at this point. >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. If you could, in fact, live with that, you would have no problem with the RBL as it exists today. 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. This is, frankly, tiresome and immature. With the lack of substantiation, you're abusing nanog every time you bring it up again. Paul going nuts and breaking his own rules is not a current operational issue: it hasn't happened, and there is an obvious, well documented solution if it does. Until and unless that happens, all you're doing here is further wrecking your own reputation. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com I speak for a fish, some leap years.

1 0

OFF TOPIC: Expert opinion needed for talk
by Derek Elder 22 Dec '98

22 Dec '98

Hi all. One of my co-workers is doing a presentation in Hong Kong on VoIP migration issues. He's looking for a couple ISP folks to get some insight for the talk. Anyone out there willing to give my buddy a hand? D E R E K E L D E R Associate Partner, CCIE# 4048 __________________________________________ USWeb/CKS http://www.uswebcks.com/ 120 Wood Ave, Suite 300 Iselin, NJ 08830 ph: 732-632-2778 fax: 732.321-3809 USWeb - A Strategic Partner for the Information Age

1 0

InterNIC "whois server <handle>" broke?
by Jeffrey Haas 22 Dec '98

22 Dec '98

Has anyone else noted that "whois server <handle>" no longer seems to be working at the InterNIC? -- Jeffrey Haas "Denial of Spamming is not a crime." elezar(a)pfrc.org -- Russell Nelson <nelson(a)crynwr.com>

7 15

ARIN & re-using some /24s
by Daniel.MacKay＠Dal.Ca 22 Dec '98

22 Dec '98

Howdy. I have a number of portable /24s which had been deployed in the early days of the Internet to customers who do not use 'em any more. Of course we're supposed to turn in unused /24s and ask our transport providers for whatever space we need, but for a variety of reasons I'd like to re-use these blocks, and I'd sort of like the ARIN info to be correct on them -- not indicating they're in use by a company that went out of business years ago for instance. The last time I tried this, I got so much flack from ARIN that I gave up and left the block registered to the wrong organization, but persistence does usually pay off with them. If you have had any experience re-registering blocks to totally different organizations, that is, changing -all- of the info associated with a net block, I'd like to hear from you- experiences and the procedure you followed. Please reply directly. I'll summarize and post here next week. -- Daniel.MacKay(a)Dal.Ca Network Operations Centre Manager 902 494-danm Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

1 0