- Test - lists.nanog.org

Just from curiosity....
by Brian Tackett 21 Jan '97

21 Jan '97

Anyone have any insights on what causes the following interesting data from a traceroute? 10 cpe1-fddi4-0.Reston.mci.net (204.70.176.102) 39 ms 36 ms 38 ms 11 * cpe1-fddi4-0.Reston.mci.net (204.70.176.102) 36 ms * 12 cpe1-fddi4-0.Reston.mci.net (204.70.176.102) 38 ms * * 13 cpe1-fddi4-0.Reston.mci.net (204.70.176.102) 41 ms * * 14 cpe1-fddi4-0.Reston.mci.net (204.70.176.102) 194 ms * * 15 cpe1-fddi4-0.Reston.mci.net (204.70.176.102) 36 ms * * 16 cpe1-fddi4-0.Reston.mci.net (204.70.176.102) 36 ms * 37 ms 17 * cpe1-fddi4-0.Reston.mci.net (204.70.176.102) 37 ms * 18 cpe1-fddi4-0.Reston.mci.net (204.70.176.102) 37 ms * 35 ms

6 5

Re: Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
by Vadim Antonov 21 Jan '97

21 Jan '97

Ah, finally. Somebody from Bay. Do you care about an official statement clarifying the story? >What makes you all think that we were the only people competing for this >business? I have no way to know that. I know people who refused business in similar situations. >Do you think that if we did not win that our competitors would not have >trumpeted their accomplishments? They'd better anticipate the potential for negative publicity? --vadim

2 1

random thoughts on how I can prevent spammers from using my net
by ALAN DORN HETZEL JR 21 Jan '97

21 Jan '97

I have been trying to figure out ways to prevent spammers from using my net as a sending location (even once). If most spam is sent from throwaway dialup accounts, how would a daily limit of #arbitrary-number of emails sent, with a charge of $0.05 (or other number) per excess e-mail...? The arbitrary-number might be 1000 or so, plenty for most legitimate uses. Since we get credit card numbers from our dialuo customers, if we do get a spammer, and they send, say 100,000 emails in a month, we subtract their allowance of 30K or so and bill them $3,500 (70K * $0.05) for excess.... If we make the terms and conditions obvious, and get a signature before activating the account, it won't take very many occurrences before word would get around that SPAM can ocst as much as paper junk mail to send Thoughts? -Dorn

3 2

Re: Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
by Vadim Antonov 21 Jan '97

21 Jan '97

Ronald Barron Yokubaitis <rony(a)texas.net> wrote: >MMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm...........Do the same considerations apply to >BUYING from the PRC? Please. The original speech was not about trade with PRC which is unquestionably good and desireable; but about cooperation with an organization whose _proclaimed_ goal is to build a politically censored version of Internet, and make uncensored networks completely illegal in PRC. --vadim

6 5

Re: random thoughts on how I can prevent spammers from using my net
by Dave O'Shea 21 Jan '97

21 Jan '97

---------- > From: ALAN DORN HETZEL JR <dorn(a)atlanta.net> > To: NANOG(a)merit.edu > Cc: dorn(a)atlanta.net > Subject: random thoughts on how I can prevent spammers from using my net > Date: Monday, January 20, 1997 2:55 PM > > > I have been trying to figure out ways to prevent spammers from using my > net as a sending location (even once). If most spam is sent from > throwaway dialup accounts, how would a daily limit of #arbitrary-number > of emails sent, with a charge of $0.05 (or other number) per excess > e-mail...? The arbitrary-number might be 1000 or so, plenty for most > legitimate uses. Since we get credit card numbers from our dialuo > customers, if we do get a spammer, and they send, say 100,000 emails > in a month, we subtract their allowance of 30K or so and bill them > $3,500 (70K * $0.05) for excess.... One of the simplest steps that can be taken is to throw a couple simple filters in the router handling the dialup server, permitting TCP 25 only to your "approved" mailhost. This step, combined with some rudimentary procmail work, would put all but the most determined spammer out of business. As for zapping their credit card, all they have to do is dispute the charge. The trick then is convincing your corporate legal department that some unemployable snotbag from Staten Island is worth the trouble of slapping with a $25k default judgement. > > If we make the terms and conditions obvious, and get a signature before > activating the account, it won't take very many occurrences before word > would get around that SPAM can ocst as much as paper junk mail to send > One thing I've considered, (get your rotten vegetables ready, people, this is a stinker!) would be to set up a "post office"-ish authority, which would be the only place that you would "accept" mail from. Persons wishing to have a message "forwarded" by the post office would have to establish credit, in advance, for some small sum - perhaps a couple of pennies. Granted, this leaves all kinds of problems, such as mailing lists and the like, but it's a thought. There are hundreds of small ISP's around the country, and the odds of every one of them implementing junk-mail filters is somewhere between slim and none. I think the only possible source for a true solution comes in limiting, to a very high degree, who you will accept mail from.

1 0

Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting
by Bill Woodcock 20 Jan '97

20 Jan '97

Mike Leber <mleber(a)he.net> writes: > Using "ask to be taken off their list" as an indicator indicates > a naive understanding of how serious spam servers (for lack of a > better term) operate. > The primary reason that a well written spam includes a way "to > get off the list" are it gives recipients an action to take, > thus reducing complaints. > You can ask to be removed from the scam artist's lists all you > want, but you will never be removed from the spam server's > master list. I can confirm this. The reply-to address of a good deal of the spam out there is <someusername>@domain.com, the example address, so the "remove-request" just gets a reply from the example address mailbot and is then trashed. We're currently seeing about 20mb/day of these misaddressed remove-requests. -Bill

1 0

Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting
by ALAN DORN HETZEL JR 20 Jan '97

20 Jan '97

Paul, If I install blackhole routing like this, will I SYN bomb myself if I get lots of incoming packets from these addresses and can't respond to them? Would I be better of to filter all INCOMING packets FROM these networks inbound to my network? -Dorn

2 1

NANOG 9 Registration Deadline
by Warren K. Williams 20 Jan '97

20 Jan '97

Folks, I've been in contact with the Grand Hyatt in San Francisco. They've extended the deadline for reservations until the 27th of January, for any of those who still need to make a reservation. Kind regards, Warren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Warren K. Williams, Director - Network Access Point Pacific Bell Business Communications Services Email: wkwilli(a)pacbell.com Phone: 510.867.9065 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Suggestion for NANOG Meeting
by Eric D. Madison 20 Jan '97

20 Jan '97

One topic that really needs to be addressed is the responsibility of the carriers on Email Spamming by customers. Should the carrier disconnect a customer that continues to send unsolicited emails even after a individual or group asks to be taken off their distribution lists. As a carrier, we at ACSI have issued a statement that we cannot be responsible for customer traffic. I know that legally we cannot filter any customer traffic, but I am really getting sick of getting emails about customers that continue to send unsolicited emails. We as a community need to come up with a common carrier policy on how to handle such customers and how to deal with complaints. If anyone else is sick of this, please let me know so maybe we can have this brought up as a topic of discussion in San Fran. Eric _______________________________________________________ Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc(a)acsi.net

9 12

Re: Suggestion for NANOG Meeting
by Stephen Sprunk 20 Jan '97

20 Jan '97

There is a difference between unsolicited email and a denial-of-service attack, both in the effects, and the necessary response. The main issue I see here is whether or not transit providers are going to become "common carriers", such as telephone and shipping companies. This means (as it applies here) that you are not liable for any content that you carry. The only way you can deny access is with appropriate local legal action (whatever that may be). The downside is that you cannot filter spam, porn, or any other distasteful traffic. I believe emergency measures, such as cutting off a site SYN flooding, or cutting the pair to a customer's house, etc., is allowed, but a permanent solution needs legal action. I believe that the net is headed in the common carrier direction, which means we must find a better way to stop spam than denying routes. This is the flip side to Universal Access; you cannot have good without having bad. Stephen Sprunk PS- I'm not a lawyer blah blah blah. At 10:02 20 01 97 -0800, you wrote: > >On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Eric D. Madison wrote: >> As a carrier, I know that we should not and can not filter/censor/monitor >> any content on our "pipes". > >So you would ignore one of your customers SYN attacking random victims on >the net? Or one of your T3 customers ping bombing somebody with a T1? > >There already is precedent for deal with abuse.

1 0