Unplugging spamming PCs
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/22/tech.spam.reut/index.html "Consumers who allow their infected computers to send out millions of "spam" messages could be unplugged from the Internet under a proposal released Tuesday by six large e-mail providers." -Hank
one of those members is comcast..the #1 source of spam for a while running..ironic isn't it? Hank Nussbacher wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/22/tech.spam.reut/index.html
"Consumers who allow their infected computers to send out millions of "spam" messages could be unplugged from the Internet under a proposal released Tuesday by six large e-mail providers."
-Hank
-- My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape"
At least they now realize they are one of the worst and are finally becoming proactive: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5230615.html They are also starting to block port 25. -b On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:27:50 -0400, William Warren <hescominsoon@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> wrote:
one of those members is comcast..the #1 source of spam for a while running..ironic isn't it?
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/22/tech.spam.reut/index.html
"Consumers who allow their infected computers to send out millions of "spam" messages could be unplugged from the Internet under a proposal released Tuesday by six large e-mail providers."
-Hank
-- My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.
-- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape"
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Brett wrote:
At least they now realize they are one of the worst and are finally becoming proactive:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5230615.html
They are also starting to block port 25.
That is still reactive (first the abuse has to occur, then you try and filter anymore from occuring), at least they might be now be doing something that everyone else has been doing for years. So far today we've only blocked 3381 attempts from dynamic comcast.net space to send email to our users. Proactive would be blocking port 25 except to comcast.net's mail servers, at least on retail users without static IPs, and then opening it up if the customer cannot work around it by using comcast's mail server to send out. Thats what responsible ISPs have done. sam
My bad! I was too busy with that pesky little thing called "work" to scrutinize my grammar before I sent ;-) It is reactive, but they are at least doing something. Completely blocking port 25 (except to comcast mail servers) will stop zombies, but not people intentionally sending spam. Anyone with a shell account can still forward traffic from an arbitrary port to 25 on an open relay. They are definitely not taking the "hard line against spam" either, but at least they are making an effort. On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:07:27 -0500 (CDT), Sam Hayes Merritt, III <sam@themerritts.org> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Brett wrote:
At least they now realize they are one of the worst and are finally becoming proactive:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5230615.html
They are also starting to block port 25.
That is still reactive (first the abuse has to occur, then you try and filter anymore from occuring), at least they might be now be doing something that everyone else has been doing for years.
So far today we've only blocked 3381 attempts from dynamic comcast.net space to send email to our users.
Proactive would be blocking port 25 except to comcast.net's mail servers, at least on retail users without static IPs, and then opening it up if the customer cannot work around it by using comcast's mail server to send out. Thats what responsible ISPs have done.
sam
warning. this is about spamming pc's. hit D now.
[comcast] [is] definitely not taking the "hard line against spam" either, but at least they are making an effort.
sure, if you mean their marketing department is making an effort to insulate their sales department from decreasing revenue by taking a hard line against spam, and to insulate their eng/ops from increasing costs by taking a hard line against spam. this group of vendors wants to stamp out what they call "wild spam" in order to make the world safe for pink contracts and what we call "mainsleaze spam". as long as it doesn't increase their costs or decrease their revenues that is. yahoo domainkeys and microsoft callerid are wonderful technologies if you care about preventing the yahoo and microsoft domain/trademark names from being diluted by spammers. but even at full implementation, the only impact will be to protect domainholders against sender-forgery, at which point the spammers will have to use real domain names they get from .biz at $5 each, and the total spam sent continue to rise month by month. and what a marketing triumph THAT will be. -- Paul Vixie
At 10:07 AM 6/23/2004, Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote:
That is still reactive (first the abuse has to occur, then you try and filter anymore from occuring), at least they might be now be doing something that everyone else has been doing for years.
To me, this smacks of an intent to continue ignoring the root cause of the problem(the box is 0wnz0r3d) and just shoving it under the rug. When these customers move to another provider, they will still have the problem, and the cost of educating the customer (w/r/t spam, virii, etc) gets shunted to the next ISP the customer moves to. ~Ben --- Ben Browning <benb@theriver.com> The River Internet Access Co. WA Operations Manager 1-877-88-RIVER http://www.theriver.com
Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote:
Proactive would be blocking port 25 except to comcast.net's mail servers, at least on retail users without static IPs, and then opening it up if the customer cannot work around it by using comcast's mail server to send out. Thats what responsible ISPs have done.
No, that would be punishing before the crime happened. Responsible would be to punish swiftly after the fact, but not before. Pete
According to my daily log reports, I cannot tell! Comcast persistently remains the number 1 source of zombie spamming to my network. ====================================== Our Anti-spam solution works!! http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=1069 ====================================== : : At least they now realize they are one of the worst and are finally : becoming proactive: : : http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5230615.html : : They are also starting to block port 25. : : -b : : : On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:27:50 -0400, William Warren : <hescominsoon@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> wrote: : > : > : > one of those members is comcast..the #1 source of spam for a : > while running..ironic isn't it? : > : > : > : > Hank Nussbacher wrote: : > : > > http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/06/22/tech.spam.reut/index.html : > > : > > "Consumers who allow their infected computers to send out millions of : > > "spam" messages could be unplugged from the Internet under a proposal : > > released Tuesday by six large e-mail providers." : > > : > > -Hank : > > : > : > -- : > My "Foundation" verse: : > Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; : > and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou : > shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, : > and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. : > : > -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" : > : :
participants (8)
-
Ben Browning -
Brett -
Doug White -
Hank Nussbacher -
Paul Vixie -
Petri Helenius -
Sam Hayes Merritt, III -
William Warren