At 01:18 PM 23/09/2003, Jack Bates wrote:
Mike Tancsa wrote:
I am not advocating that at all. ("everyone's doing it, so let's not bother") However, I dont see what the municipal government has to do with a matter like this. I imagine its a civil issue where you have to get the lawyers involved :( Certainly if the company persisted, we would have done so. The fact that they can then go to another ISP who does not care and allows them to use their network is another issue.
Of course, it depends on the local laws, but in many locations, pornography
This user was sending *out* from our network, not to our users. It would have been up to the authorities in said localities to bring charges against them. I did what I could here. The only cost effective way to deal with things like this is for the ISP to act which we did. Oklahoma would be foolish to spend tens of thousands of dollars to go after this idiot. Really, your state money is better spent elsewhere. This is not very different than the ISPs out there not bothering to clean up their infected users (my favorite rant for the quarter). Looking at http://isc.sans.org/port_details.html?port=135&repax=1&tarax=2&srcax=2&percent=N&days=70&Redraw=Submit+Query it would appear by the number of source addresses, there has not been any significant reduction in blaster and its variants. ---Mike
has a lot of restrictions and when those restrictions are broken, it becomes a criminal matter. For example, most of my user's have "family" accounts. This means that their email is not only theirs but their children and grandchildren's. Even if the owner of the account is an adult, the fact that their children are present when they read their email means that all pornographic spam they receive is essentially being delivered to a minor. This is especially true with misleading subject lines where children are exposed to unwanted material before anyone realizes it. In Oklahoma, at least, it is a criminal offense to expose children to pornographic material.
-Jack