- Test - lists.nanog.org

Get me off this list....
by Richard Johnson 22 Apr '97

22 Apr '97

How would I go about it???? Richard Johnson System Administrator WPLJ/WABC Radio

2 1

NSI SAYS FCC SHOULD ASSUME INTERNET REGISTRATION FUNCTIONS
by Charles R. Hoynowski 22 Apr '97

22 Apr '97

NSI SAYS FCC SHOULD ASSUME INTERNET REGISTRATION FUNCTIONS Network Solutions Inc., which currently registers all top-level domain names under contract to the National Science Foundation, has suggested that the Federal Communications Commission temporarily assume that function until an international legal authority can be created to manage the system. The transition period would allow for public comment on the plan in order to incorporate any new processes or structures deemed necessary. The plan is in contrast to an earlier proposal announced by the Internet International Ad Hoc Commission to create seven new shard generic top-level domains to be administered by 28 new registrars. NSI's president says the IAHC plan risks Internet instability, creates "too much bureaucracy," and will contribute to increased domain name legal disputes. (BNA Daily Report for Executives 16 Apr 97) _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ Charles R. Hoynowski, Net Admin _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Etak, Inc., 1430 O'Brien Drive, _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ Menlo Park, CA 94025 _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Voice:415-617-4458 Fax:617-0161 _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Email: charles(a)etak.com

1 0

RE: YI: BBN/MCI Peering Change 3/31/97
by Scott Huddle 22 Apr '97

22 Apr '97

Just to update everyone on some of the strange traceroutes, MCI continues to support our customer relationship with BBN by taking MEDs, and will continue to do so for a bit longer, hopefully this will be transitioned real soon. BBN has been a great customer, best of luck in your new ventures! -scott Sean Kennedy <liam(a)bbnplanet.com> wrote on Mon, 17 Mar 1997 > >Just over two years ago BBN/NEARNET, BBN/BARRNet, and SURAnet (later >BBN/SURAnet) independently selected MCI to provide Network Service Provider >(NSP) transit services. The transit agreement obligated BBN-owned >regionals to use MCI for transit services. Over the past two years BBN >has migrated from this collection of semi-autonomous regional networks >to one nationwide infrastructure. We have made minimal use of MCI >transit services, using existing connections to MCI primarily to reach >MCI customers. > >In light of this change and in order to provide improved connectivity >to their customers, BBN and MCI have agreed to replace the transit >service agreement with a private peering agreement. Cessation of the >transit agreement is scheduled for 3/31/97. > >The technical impact of this change is that MCI will no longer announce >BBN routes at the public interconnects, except to those providers who >have purchased transit service from MCI. Providers with significant >trans-national US infrastructure at DS3 or greater speeds who are reliant >on MCI's announcement of AS1 prefixes are encouraged to pursue peering with >BBN by contacting 'peering(a)bbnplanet.com' by 3/19/97. Those providers >with a existing transit provider who peers with BBN should see no change in >how they reach BBN customers (and should contact their transit provider with >questions regarding its connectivity). Existing peers of BBN will see no >change in our announcements or routing. > > Sean > >

2 1

Response from Cyber Promotions (fwd)
by Hank Nussbacher 21 Apr '97

21 Apr '97

Read the msg below from Cyberpromo. It is valid for ISPs to block at the router level as well as the sendmail level as per Cyberpromo's mail. I figured some people here may be interested in this. :-) Hank Nussbacher ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 18:11:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Mail AutoResponder <abuse(a)c-y-b-e-r-p-r-o-m-o.com> Subject: Response from Cyber Promotions ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for taking the time to write to Cyber Promotions with your concerns. Please be aware that this mailbox (abuse(a)cyberpromo.com) is read by many people in our company, including our senior management. The fact that your message garners e-mail from an auto-responder is to insure a timely response. It should not be an indication of a lack of consideration or concern. CYBER PROMOTIONS' POSITION ON ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY FOR INTERNET CONTENT Cyber provides email services to a large number of customers, whom are supporting thousands of end users. It is our position that the Internet is an open marketplace, where commerce of any and all kinds may take place in accordance with public demand. We do not believe censorship is the responsibility of an Internet service provider. It is not our place to censor customers' content or legitimate business practices. Messages originating from customer sites reflect the opinions of our customers and not necessarily those of Cyber Promotions. SUGGESTIONS Cyber is a pro-active organization with goals of delivering the highest quality email solutions. Since we believe in continuous improvement, we will re-evaluate our position in light of the any new regulatory developments. We appreciate that our position may not be agreeable to everyone. Further, we understand your interest in seeking a solution. With that in mind, may we suggest the following options: - END-USERs - A variety of e-mail and filtering software packages are available on the Internet for end-users. For example, Eudora and procmail offer sufficient protection from e-mail of your undesired Internet sites. Or you can use the latest in filtering software, e-Filter, sold on Cyber's own web page at... http://www.cyberpromo.com - ISPs - Your mail servers and/or router systems can be set to reject incoming spam or filter out offensive sites at the IP level. Sendmail and ccmail are a few examples of good systems which perform these functions. Again, we would like to thank you for your valuable input, and wish you continued success in your Internet experience. Best Regards, The Cyber Promotions Staff (Many of Cyber's policies regarding these issues have been adopted from our own backbone providers.)

8 8

(Fwd) Re: What's going on?
by Sean Rolinson 21 Apr '97

21 Apr '97

Hello, The below post is number 39 for the 'Whats Going On Saga' (including Vixie's ISP Vs. SPAM Monster, which has yet to spawn a sequel). And I would venture to say that 5-10 messages contained meaningful and not previously posted suggestions or material that would be helpful to the list. Here' s my question: Is it feasable or even possible to moderate a list of this size?? This list is rather large and see's quite a few messages daily. I have 1260 messages since Feb. 10th from this group. I like the list and plan on staying subscribed regardless, but I think some sort of moderation would be helpful to the list. Just a suggestion... Sean Rolinson snowdog(a)charm.net P.S. Paul, I loved your post about the light bulbs, it was hilarious... ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: david(a)sparks.net Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 21:17:09 -0400 (EDT) To: "Matthew E. Pearson" <mpearson(a)games-online.com> Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: What's going on? On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Matthew E. Pearson wrote: > My honest recommendation although nobody wants to hear it is simple. You > accomplish it the same way telecom, video, and other providers have for > years and years.. GOVERNMENT REGULATION. If every ISP had to get licensed > by the US (or other..) government and a clearly defined set of regulations [...] > I hate to say it but it appears that the Internet cannot run itself anymore > because big-business does not want to sit down and play by the rules (not [Many lines of "the government is the solution" deleted] > We better do something QUICK before Uncle Sam gets any bright ideas. Don't you feel a little silly posting both these statements in the same message? You certainly look it:( --- David Miller ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when one doesn't know what one can't do!

2 1

Re: Response from Cyber Promotions (fwd)
by Steve Noble 21 Apr '97

21 Apr '97

Hello :) This letter looks exactly like the one that AGIS sent me when i complained about personally receiving unsolicited SPAM from their network, note that i NEVER got a real reply, only this canned letter. Let's take a look : >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Dear Sir/Madam, > >Thank you for taking the time to write to Cyber Promotions with your concerns. > >Please be aware that this mailbox (abuse(a)cyberpromo.com) is read by many >people in our company, including our senior management. The fact that your >message garners e-mail from an auto-responder is to insure a timely response. >It should not be an indication of a lack of consideration or concern. Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for taking the time to write to AGIS with your concerns. Please be aware that this mailbox (abuse(a)agis.net) is read by our entire company, including our senior management. The fact that your message garners e-mail from an auto-responder is to insure a timely response. It should not be an indication of a lack of consideration or concern. > >CYBER PROMOTIONS' POSITION ON ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY FOR INTERNET CONTENT >Cyber provides email services to a large number of customers, whom >are supporting thousands of end users. > >It is our position that the Internet is an open marketplace, where >commerce of any and all kinds may take place in accordance with public >demand. We do not believe censorship is the responsibility of an Internet >service provider. It is not our place to censor customers' content or >legitimate business practices. Messages originating from customer sites >reflect the opinions of our customers and not necessarily those of >Cyber Promotions. AGIS' POSITION ON ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY FOR INTERNET CONTENT AGIS provides Internet connectivity to a large number of customers, whom are supporting millions of end users. As a global service provider, we provide circuits for Internet backbone connectivity. We do not offer connectivity directly to end-users. It is our position that the Internet is an open marketplace, where commerce of any and all kinds may take place in accordance with public demand. We do not believe censorship is the responsibility of an Internet service provider. It is not our place to censor customers' content or legitimate business practices. Messages originating from customer sites reflect the opinions of our customers and not necessarily those of AGIS. > >SUGGESTIONS >Cyber is a pro-active organization with goals of delivering the highest >quality email solutions. Since we believe in continuous improvement, we >will re-evaluate our position in light of the any new regulatory developments. > >We appreciate that our position may not be agreeable to everyone. Further, >we understand your interest in seeking a solution. With that in mind, may >we suggest the following options: SUGGESTIONS AGIS is a pro-active organization with goals of delivering the highest quality solutions in support of the Internet's mission critical applications. Since we believe in continuous improvement, we will re-evaluate our position in light of the any new regulatory developments. We appreciate that our position may not be agreeable to everyone. Further, we understand your interest in seeking a solution. With that in mind, may we suggest the following options: > >- END-USERs - A variety of e-mail and filtering software packages are >available on the Internet for end-users. For example, Eudora and procmail >offer sufficient protection from e-mail of your undesired Internet sites. >Or you can use the latest in filtering software, e-Filter, sold on >Cyber's own web page at... http://www.cyberpromo.com (note - the fact that cybernation has the gaul to sell you a product to protect you against their unsolicited and costly use of your e-mail makes me sick) - END-USERs - A variety of e-mail and filtering software packages are available on the Internet for end-users. For example, Eudora and procmail offer sufficient protection from e-mail of your undesired Internet sites. > >- ISPs - Your mail servers and/or router systems can be set to reject >incoming spam or filter out offensive sites at the IP level. Sendmail and >ccmail are a few examples of good systems which perform these functions. > >Again, we would like to thank you for your valuable input, and wish you >continued success in your Internet experience. - ISPs - Your mail servers and/or router systems to can be set to reject incoming spam or filter out offensive sites at the IP level. Sendmail and ccmail are a few examples of good systems which perform these functions. - Also, visit http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ for some more helpful hints. Again, we would like to thank you for your valuable input, and wish you continued success in your Internet experience. > >Best Regards, > > The Cyber Promotions Staff > Best Regards, The AGIS Staff ... Well it seems to me that AGIS and Cyber Promotions have almost exactly the same view on SPAM and its acceptability and their accountability (taken from the fact that their letters are pretty much the same sans the name switch and a few additions/subtractions). Anyways.. just my .02$ :) Steve

1 0

ATTENDEE LIST UPDATE
by Pam Ciesla 21 Apr '97

21 Apr '97

The attendee list has been update as of Monday, 4/21AM. If you have registered and your name does not appear on the list please let me know. Thanks Pam 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: What's going on?
by Sanjay Dani 21 Apr '97

21 Apr '97

>From markb(a)infi.net Thu Apr 17 19:49 PDT 1997 >Tell me about it. In the course of today's activities, I >learned that one of our users with a small commercial web site >on one of our servers spammed the net from an account on >another ISP. The spam contained a pointer to his URL on >our server. The spammer in this case is not misusing any of your resources. A web provider stands on a very tenuous ground. I fail to understand those--who would vandalize your network or incite others to vandalize it--who want to force that choice on you: >From: Michael Dillon <michael(a)memra.com> >I certainly don't condone any attacks on AGIS but I think this should be a >lesson that Internet users expect a certain standard of behavior from >network providers. While there may be no legal imperative to force network >providers to ehave in a certain way, the will of the people has a way of >making itself felt and we ignore it at our peril. (Internet users != hackers) I understand the will of the people to boycot a certain company or a product, but breaking into others' property? Sophistry like above deserves some of the blame for the break-ins. >Some of the mail seems to be holding us partially culpable >for the spam. I'm happy to report that the other ISP is taking >action against the spam complaint, but I don't know of any >interpretation of Netiquette that condemns commercial WWW sites. >I don't know that I'd favor an abuse policy that encompasses >WWW sites, even if they are listed elsewhere in spam mailings, Where does one draw the line? The phone company that gives phone service to the email spammer, the gazillion dollar software and hardware companies that sell their pc/email/browser products to the spammers? Break into them? It is easy to imagine the company some of the extermist anti-spammers would be keeping, at this rate. This issues has relevance to nanog--the veiled encouragement to break-ins I see here does result into network operational problems, more than most of the spams do. Sanjay. PS. I don't condone spamming, my company disconnect accounts that spam _from_ our network.

12 14

Re: What's going on?
by Matthew James Gering 20 Apr '97

20 Apr '97

> > This issues has relevance to nanog--the veiled encouragement > > to break-ins I see here does result into network operational > > problems, more than most of the spams do. > > You misunderstand my point. I do NOT encourage breakins, mailbombing, > SYN-flooding or any other kind of attacks as a solution to the SPAM > problem. It's not a technical problem so technical solutions won't cut it. You are correct that SPAM itself is not a technical problem. But, mail-relaying *is* a technical problem -- and regardless of the the legalities of UCE (aka SPAM), unauthorized use of other MTA's as relays *is* network abuse. This can be solved technically. Once the originating MTA must be the same network as the originator of the SPAM, it will be much easier to deal with the SPAM issue. Matt

4 4

Re: What's going on?
by lydia＠theurgy.digex.net 20 Apr '97

20 Apr '97

On Apr 17, 10:47pm, MARK BORCHERS wrote: > I don't know that I'd favor an abuse policy that encompasses > WWW sites, even if they are listed elsewhere in spam mailings, > but if there's a reasonable policy out there that contemplates > this type of situation, I'd love to know how it reads. [ Speaking only for myself. ] DIGEX's acceptable use policies prohibit customers spamming through DIGEX connections (whether individual dialup, leased line, or webserver hosting), _and_ they prohibit customers from advertising services hosted on DIGEX connections in a manner that violates DIGEX's no-spam policies or the AUP of another provider. We also explicitly prohibit customers from advertising in a manner that violates the Federal Trade Commision's Deception Policy Statement. This prevents somebody from reaping the benefits of a spam, regardless of where it originated from. It also means that even if the other provider doesn't take a responsible attitude towards his customers, the Internet community still has a second line of defense. It means that unethical businessmen can't go get throwaway Juno/CompuServe/etc. accounts, spam from them with the full knowledge that the accounts are going to be immediately cancelled, and pay nothing for the privilege. The policy is at http://www.access.digex.net/~policy/digex-aup.html for the curious. I certainly don't advocate hacker attacks on AGIS, if indeed AGIS was actually the subject of a denial of service attack. But I do think that AGIS, as a backbone provider, needs to take a more responsible attitude. When I log into my mail servers in the morning and find that my mail queue is jammed with fifteen thousand CyberPromo ads and legitimate customer traffic is slowed or stalled, as far as I'm concerned, that's something just short of a denial of service attack originating from AGIS netblocks. While it's clear that, right now, ISPs aren't really legally responsible for the behavior of their customers, from the standpoint of good business relations and the general cooperative attitude of the Internet, it seems irresponsible for a provider to fail to terminate customers who are obviously abusive. I'm currently working on a sendmail hack that will deal with only accepting relays from certain netblocks, expressed in IP prefix notation (the current sendmail capability of specifying, say, 204.91.98, is inadequate for me, since we have customers to have less than /24s). Until then, CyberPromo is my daily headache. Those people ought to be sued off the earth for theft of service. +-------------+--------------------------------------+---------------------+ | Lydia Leong | http://www.access.digex.net/~lwl/ | lydia(a)digex.net | | DIGEX, Inc. | Business Internet Connectivity Group | Systems Engineering | | 800-99DIGEX | Senior Systems Engineer / Postmaster | policy(a)digex.net | +-------------+--------------------------------------+---------------------+

2 1