- Test - lists.nanog.org

spam stopped for now
by dhudes＠inet.graphnet.com 27 May '97

27 May '97

Over the past few days best-service.com has been using Graphnet Global Internet Services mail server, which runs Netscape Mail Server, to send spam to lots of folks. The queue delays have mounted and an interim fix has been implemented while we work on redoing our mail infrastructure to protect the weak and vulnerable Netscape Mail Server. Having identified the sending domain, our gateway router now has a filter to block all connections from their /20. Yup, these slime have a /20 from MCI. Our corporate powers-that-be are reviewing action to be taken. Best-service.com is in Manhattan, we are in Teaneck NJ so it is easy enough to sue/firebomb/prosecute/? if it can be arranged. Dana Hudes Graphnet

1 0

Pro/Con
by bmanning＠ISI.EDU 27 May '97

27 May '97

> 2:00 Large & Small Exchange Points: Advantages, Tradeoffs, Futures > Bill Manning, ISI There seems to be some "dynamic tension" here regarding the viability of exchange points as a tool in the internet engineers toolkit. Other talks are going to address specific issues, I guess that this one may focus on technological limitations and the dreaded peering/transit issues. If there are those brave souls whom are interesting in passing on their issues/ideas ahead of time, I'll have a more topical presentation. --bill

2 1

Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
by Curt Howland 27 May '97

27 May '97

> From: Stephen Sprunk <spsprunk(a)paranet.com> > Actually, the USPS is almost 100% postage-funded; the only "subsidy" they > receive is that it's a felony to mess with US Mail (which courts will go > crazy over), whereas messing with FedEx/UPS packages is barely a misdemeanor. > > Stephen > Don't forget their license plates all say U.S.Gov, which I think makes then tax exempt. The USPS also provides passport services, something VERY specific to the Fed.Gov functioning. Now back to the issue of SPAM: Any law that requires the ISP on the RECEIVING side to take action simply plays into the hands of the spammers. There is already judicial precident (Earthlink vs. Cyberpromo) that the SENDER is responsible for theft of services and such. That precident, that someone is responsible for the email that they send, needs to be expanded upon, not erased by legislative fiat. Curt-

1 0

NANOG MEETING UPDATE
by Pam Ciesla 27 May '97

27 May '97

The attendee list for the June NANOG Meeting in Tampa has been updated. The registration cut-off date is Wednesday, May 28th. Registration and payment is due by the 28th. Registration & payment recieved after this date will be $120. There is a $20 charge for any cancelations recieved after the 28th. Please note that checks sent on or before the 28th but recieve after the 28th will be accepted at the $100 fee. If you are not sure of your registration status please check the attendee list on the nanog web page. Any problems let me know. Thanks xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pam Ciesla 313-936-0172 - phone Merit Network, Inc. 313-647-3185 - fax University of Michigan 4251 Plymouth Road Bldg. I, Suite C Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1 0

Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
by Russell Nelson 26 May '97

26 May '97

Matthew James Gering writes: > Unauthorized use of mail relays is already illegal -- no explicit law is > necessary to make it so. Unauthorized use of mail relays is already preventable. Why legislate against something (which merely establishes a penalty for it) when you can stop it from happening, cold. Just install qmail -- by default it prevents relaying. http://www.qmail.org. [ For the sake of truth, I run that site, and I also provide commercial support for qmail -- but I do both of those because qmail helps stop spam. ] -- -russ <nelson(a)crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr Software sells network driver support | PGP ok 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Peace, Justice, Freedom: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | pick two (only mostly true)

2 1

Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
by Matthew James Gering 26 May '97

26 May '97

The problem with spam is not the inability of persons and companies to create policies, but to enforce those policies due to to the inability to identify spam, and measures taken to prevent its identification. We do not need government to create policies for us, and the goverment has no additional ability to enforce policy except through the use of force (police, courts, guns). Unauthorized use of mail relays is already illegal -- no explicit law is necessary to make it so. Forgery of headers to falsely implicate an innocent party is already illegal -- no explicit law is necessary to make it so. I oppose any explicit goverment regulation of the Internet, good intentions or not. The governments hold no particular control over the Internet itself (except US, which cannot practically excercise it) -- geographic borders are too easily circumvented. Regulation based on the geographic location of information and equipment creates an influence that opposes efficiency in Internet traffic, routing, caching, etc. The top-level power in the Internet derives from the delegation TLD's, IP space, and the policies and peering contracts of the default-free tier 1 providers. This is global and unescapable. Where it involves purely technical issues to insure the continued viability and operation of the Internet, this is where regulation should derive from. It must be technical, unbiased and non-judgemental. Putting aside where and who regulates, the only thing that is necessary to solve them problem is as follows: * reinforcement of the illegality of unauthorized use mail relays * reinforcement of the illegality of header forgery to implicate an innocent party. And in the effort to allow the identification of spam, a required SMTP header: precedence: [ high | normal | low | bulk | uce ] This will allow policies to be enforced, and maintain the freedom of creating that policy. Matt

2 1

Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs
by Dave O'Shea 24 May '97

24 May '97

---- From: John R Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> To: nanog(a)merit.edu Date: Friday, May 23, 1997 10:02 PM Subject: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs >No, this isn't a rant about spam. It's about a misguided anti-spam >bill that puts potentially onerous rules on every ISP in the country. > >Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska filed a bill earlier this week that's >intended to solve the spam problem. His intentions are clearly good, and >based on his press release, he seems to understand many of the issues, >but his bill is very unfortunate. It says: > >* Commercial e-mail must be tagged with "advertisement" Delightful! /advertisement/j to all of 'em. >* All ISPs must provide tag filtering on inbound mail If the ISP maintains your e-mail account, this seems like a simple patch to sendmail or popd. If, by "ISP" you mean "anyone who provides a circuit", obviously much more difficult. >* Commercial e-mail must provide a real return address, and accept remove > requests. They have 48 hours to act on a remove request. Given that virtually all e-spammers are simply unemployable trash, this seems pointless. >* The FTC can discipline misbehaving ISPs. Makes sense, if the ISP actually takes part in the transaction, rather than simply forwarding packets. >* Various penalties for unsigned ads, for ISPs that don't provide > filtering, for spammers who continue to send ads after receiving a remove. I'm not thrilled about having to muck around with mail forwarding, but if there was an impetus to do it, and sandards were established, it would be fairly simple. On the other hand, I get a nice little warm feeling from slapping some sh*t-fer-brains in Miami with a summons & complaint demanding liquidated damages of $50,000,000. There are advantages to having a legal department that fills an entire floor. :-) > >There's a press release and a full copy of the bill on the senator's web site >at http://www.senate.gov/~murkowski/press/EMail052197.html > >Seems to me that if this were enacted into law, it'd be bad news for ISPs, >since the volume of spam would increase (since it'd be officially legal) and >ISPs would have to provide filtering on mountains of inbound spam. And, of >course, opt-out lists don't work. Can't see it. If you can perform effective filtering, the spam would almost certainly decrease. Opt-out lists would be fairly redundant. >People say they've been talking to Murkowski, he's amenable to argument and >will probably revise his bill next week. If you think this bill would affect >your business (he's a pro-business conservative Republican, after all), it's >worth a phone call. Sounds like it is.

1 0

Re: Congestion control/QoS
by Vadim Antonov 24 May '97

24 May '97

Dirk Harms-Merbitz <dirk(a)orlando.power.net> wrote: >Seems to me that a good way of limiting damage from runaway >networks/hosts would be a modifaction of RED (Random Early >Drop). >Controlled Early Drop (CED? I just made this up, suggestions?) >would allow a router to give a preference to connected >networks/hosts. Packets from certain networks would have a higher >chance of being dropped from a router queue then packets from >other networks. This is a packet classification problem. Here's a fragment from a test configuration file for my boxes-as-being-developed: ------------------------------------------------------------- ip-classifier FILTER1 { if( srcaddr = [192.40.77.20 : 192.40.77.90] and ((proto = tcp and srcport <> [smtp, telnet, 512]) or (proto = udp and dstport = domain)) ) { priority-select { 0: class PRIORITY 1,2: { if( tos = bulk ) blackhole goto l1 } } reject } if( tos = [interactive, bulk, 017] ) class INTERACTIVE l1: if( dstaddr = 199.0.55.1 and tcp-syn ) reject class ROUTINE } ip-classifier DEFAULT { priority-select { 0: class ROUTINE 1: class PRIORITY } class INTERACTIVE } interface E1021-0 { description "PL126612 to Joppa, MD" bandwidth 0.1G ip-address 144.227.0.11/24 ip-secondary 199.0.88.11/24 keepalive no out-ip-classifier FILTER1 out-class ROUTINE { bandwidth 0.5% ; priority 4 } out-class PRIORITY { bandwidth 20% ; priority 5 } out-class INTERACTIVE { bandwidth 1M ; priority 7 } ip-peer 144.227.0.12 { out-ip-classifier DEFAULT } ip-peer 144.227.0.50 { mac-address 01.29.00.11.91.21 } } interface X123 { load-share [E1021-0, E1021-1, E777-0] } ------------------------------------------------------------- Are you netgeeks salivating yet? :) --vadim

2 1

Top Level Domain Servers
by Curt Howland 23 May '97

23 May '97

Afternoon, all, After reading the commentaries about top level domain servers and their reality or mythical status, I went on a search of a list of the present "." and top-level servers. Well, no luck. I searched the RFC's, resource pages, IETF.org and IANA.org pages, nada. I tried to RTFM, but couldn't find the FM. I know the list exists, I saw it years ago and someone quoted such a list on this NANOG mailing list a day or two ago. So, if someone would be kind enough to mail me a link to this most essential of services, I would be grateful. I appologize in advance for poluting the NANOG list with yet more actual operational questions. Curt- Howland(a)ConXioN.com

3 2

Re: Top Level Domain Servers
by Carl Oppedahl 23 May '97

23 May '97

At 01:54 PM 05/23/97 -0700, Curt Howland wrote: > >After reading the commentaries about top level domain servers >and their reality or mythical status, I went on a search of a >list of the present "." and top-level servers. > >Well, no luck. I searched the RFC's, resource pages, IETF.org >and IANA.org pages, nada. I tried to RTFM, but couldn't find >the FM. > >I know the list exists, I saw it years ago and someone quoted >such a list on this NANOG mailing list a day or two ago. <http://www.patents.com/nsi/roots.sht>

2 1