Vendors spamming NANOG attendees
It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern (gstern@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70. The spammer had the balls to say, in his email:
We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
He does not show as an attendee at NANOG, but another executive, David Altstaetter, daltstaetter@calient.net did register, and may have even shown up. Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will show your reaction via your pocketbooks. Maybe its time for the NANOG board and staff to step in, and develop some teeth to use in cases like these? Unless the majority of you members are cool with unfettered spamming of member and attendee lists. In which case, have at it! Rodney
Rodney, What do you suggest? Shoot them at Dawn? :-) The standard warning and education has always been adequate in the past. We don't have a runaway spamming problem on the list. -mel beckman
On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com> wrote:
It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern (gstern@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70.
The spammer had the balls to say, in his email:
We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
He does not show as an attendee at NANOG, but another executive, David Altstaetter, daltstaetter@calient.net did register, and may have even shown up. Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
Maybe its time for the NANOG board and staff to step in, and develop some teeth to use in cases like these? Unless the majority of you members are cool with unfettered spamming of member and attendee lists. In which case, have at it!
Rodney
On Jun 13, 2017, at 9:02 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
Rodney,
What do you suggest? Shoot them at Dawn? :-)
The standard warning and education has always been adequate in the past. We don't have a runaway spamming problem on the list.
What standard warning and education? We have filters to stop spam making it to the list. But there is definitely a spamming problem of sorts amongst vendors, to subscriber addresses. I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or ARIN. What I *know* is that if you open the door, and ignore it with vendors on NANOG, the list members will end up having a problem. If you want to know why I consider myself an expert, feel free to ask me offline about what the attitude that those of us who ran "the backbone" in 1994 had - and how that worked out. On the other hand, as a senior citizen, at the end of my tech days, with enable grudgingly given up, I guess I could turn away and say "not my problem, really". YMMV.
-mel beckman
On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com> wrote:
It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern (gstern@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70.
The spammer had the balls to say, in his email:
We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
He does not show as an attendee at NANOG, but another executive, David Altstaetter, daltstaetter@calient.net did register, and may have even shown up. Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
Maybe its time for the NANOG board and staff to step in, and develop some teeth to use in cases like these? Unless the majority of you members are cool with unfettered spamming of member and attendee lists. In which case, have at it!
Rodney
Rodney, You said "I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or ARIN." I would hardly call this a flood. But my point is that most people posting to NANOG, being technical people, respond to notifications that they are spamming. Your example email illustrates this perfectly. Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming. If they're persistent they get removed from the list (I don't think that has had to happen for several years). The remaining spammers are easily caught by filters, as you can plainly see. I don't see your need for urgency, and you still haven't said what you propose as a better arrangement. I made my suggestion. What's yours? -mel
On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:19 AM, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com> wrote:
On Jun 13, 2017, at 9:02 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
Rodney,
What do you suggest? Shoot them at Dawn? :-)
The standard warning and education has always been adequate in the past. We don't have a runaway spamming problem on the list.
What standard warning and education?
We have filters to stop spam making it to the list.
But there is definitely a spamming problem of sorts amongst vendors, to subscriber addresses.
I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or ARIN.
What I *know* is that if you open the door, and ignore it with vendors on NANOG, the list members will end up having a problem. If you want to know why I consider myself an expert, feel free to ask me offline about what the attitude that those of us who ran "the backbone" in 1994 had - and how that worked out.
On the other hand, as a senior citizen, at the end of my tech days, with enable grudgingly given up, I guess I could turn away and say "not my problem, really".
YMMV.
-mel beckman
On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com> wrote:
It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern (gstern@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70.
The spammer had the balls to say, in his email:
We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
He does not show as an attendee at NANOG, but another executive, David Altstaetter, daltstaetter@calient.net did register, and may have even shown up. Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
Maybe its time for the NANOG board and staff to step in, and develop some teeth to use in cases like these? Unless the majority of you members are cool with unfettered spamming of member and attendee lists. In which case, have at it!
Rodney
On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
Rodney,
You said "I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or ARIN."
I would hardly call this a flood. But my point is that most people posting to NANOG, being technical people, respond to notifications that they are spamming. Your example email illustrates this perfectly. Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming. If they're persistent they get removed from the list (I don't think that has had to happen for several years).
The remaining spammers are easily caught by filters, as you can plainly see.
I don't see your need for urgency, and you still haven't said what you propose as a better arrangement. I made my suggestion. What's yours?
I'm one of 10,000. I assume others see as many as I do (I have no idea how many get caught in my filters). I don't recall calling this a flood. Did I? And I don't believe he is on the list so there's no way to "remove" him. I think the list does a good job over time "training" subscribers. But I did say that if others don't respond to spammers to this list from vendors, it will become a problem. The list is fertile ground. And I'm not sure that Sterns response indicates any awareness. He admitted he used the 1,300 person attendee list as a prospecting tool. So all that I am suggesting is that others take the time to respond to spam from vendors (as I did) rather than ignoring it (just hitting delete doesn't work out in the long run). I have to assume that after a reasonable number of people do complain to his company, they'll learn. And others on the list who are tempted, change their minds. I don't think the list itself per se suffers from a spam problem - although my 3 emails probably qualify as too much noise already. But it is vendors who use the list to prospect who should be discouraged. Btw I have no doubt that rogue salesmen from my companies over the years have tried it once. When I find out about it, I do kick butts. I'm hoping that this discussion is enough to get Calient to rethink their strategy. For crying out loud, the guy is a VP in their company. What kind of example is that? I'll end my public noise here :-) Rodney
-mel
On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:19 AM, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com> wrote:
On Jun 13, 2017, at 9:02 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
Rodney,
What do you suggest? Shoot them at Dawn? :-)
The standard warning and education has always been adequate in the past. We don't have a runaway spamming problem on the list.
What standard warning and education?
We have filters to stop spam making it to the list.
But there is definitely a spamming problem of sorts amongst vendors, to subscriber addresses.
I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or ARIN.
What I *know* is that if you open the door, and ignore it with vendors on NANOG, the list members will end up having a problem. If you want to know why I consider myself an expert, feel free to ask me offline about what the attitude that those of us who ran "the backbone" in 1994 had - and how that worked out.
On the other hand, as a senior citizen, at the end of my tech days, with enable grudgingly given up, I guess I could turn away and say "not my problem, really".
YMMV.
-mel beckman
On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com> wrote:
It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern (gstern@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70.
The spammer had the balls to say, in his email:
We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
He does not show as an attendee at NANOG, but another executive, David Altstaetter, daltstaetter@calient.net did register, and may have even shown up. Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
Maybe its time for the NANOG board and staff to step in, and develop some teeth to use in cases like these? Unless the majority of you members are cool with unfettered spamming of member and attendee lists. In which case, have at it!
Rodney
Rodney, My misunderstanding. Despite the subject line noting NANOG attendees, I interpreted your statement "It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed…” to be referring to the NANOG mailing list (“us”). I figured the spammer was signing up to the list first. As for the attendee list, short of making it secret I’m (which would be counterproductive), I think we just have to live with it (I did not attend this year, and thus didn’t get spammed). -mel On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:57 AM, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com<mailto:rjoffe@centergate.com>> wrote: On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> wrote: Rodney, You said "I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or ARIN." I would hardly call this a flood. But my point is that most people posting to NANOG, being technical people, respond to notifications that they are spamming. Your example email illustrates this perfectly. Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming. If they're persistent they get removed from the list (I don't think that has had to happen for several years). The remaining spammers are easily caught by filters, as you can plainly see. I don't see your need for urgency, and you still haven't said what you propose as a better arrangement. I made my suggestion. What's yours? I'm one of 10,000. I assume others see as many as I do (I have no idea how many get caught in my filters). I don't recall calling this a flood. Did I? And I don't believe he is on the list so there's no way to "remove" him. I think the list does a good job over time "training" subscribers. But I did say that if others don't respond to spammers to this list from vendors, it will become a problem. The list is fertile ground. And I'm not sure that Sterns response indicates any awareness. He admitted he used the 1,300 person attendee list as a prospecting tool. So all that I am suggesting is that others take the time to respond to spam from vendors (as I did) rather than ignoring it (just hitting delete doesn't work out in the long run). I have to assume that after a reasonable number of people do complain to his company, they'll learn. And others on the list who are tempted, change their minds. I don't think the list itself per se suffers from a spam problem - although my 3 emails probably qualify as too much noise already. But it is vendors who use the list to prospect who should be discouraged. Btw I have no doubt that rogue salesmen from my companies over the years have tried it once. When I find out about it, I do kick butts. I'm hoping that this discussion is enough to get Calient to rethink their strategy. For crying out loud, the guy is a VP in their company. What kind of example is that? I'll end my public noise here :-) Rodney -mel On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:19 AM, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com<mailto:rjoffe@centergate.com>> wrote: On Jun 13, 2017, at 9:02 AM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> wrote: Rodney, What do you suggest? Shoot them at Dawn? :-) The standard warning and education has always been adequate in the past. We don't have a runaway spamming problem on the list. What standard warning and education? We have filters to stop spam making it to the list. But there is definitely a spamming problem of sorts amongst vendors, to subscriber addresses. I see something every couple of months that I can track back to NANOG, or ARIN. What I *know* is that if you open the door, and ignore it with vendors on NANOG, the list members will end up having a problem. If you want to know why I consider myself an expert, feel free to ask me offline about what the attitude that those of us who ran "the backbone" in 1994 had - and how that worked out. On the other hand, as a senior citizen, at the end of my tech days, with enable grudgingly given up, I guess I could turn away and say "not my problem, really". YMMV. -mel beckman On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com<mailto:rjoffe@centergate.com>> wrote: It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern (gstern@calient.net<mailto:gstern@calient.net>), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70. The spammer had the balls to say, in his email: We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions. He does not show as an attendee at NANOG, but another executive, David Altstaetter, daltstaetter@calient.net<mailto:daltstaetter@calient.net> did register, and may have even shown up. Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will show your reaction via your pocketbooks. Maybe its time for the NANOG board and staff to step in, and develop some teeth to use in cases like these? Unless the majority of you members are cool with unfettered spamming of member and attendee lists. In which case, have at it! Rodney
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote:
Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming.
That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the spamming will not only continue, it will increase. (As we've seen: over and over and over again.) That's because they don't care about being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits. So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates indefinitely. If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and you take no action except to continue giving them the means to hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't scaling well". --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG ---rsk
I've started keeping a list of companies who make unsolicited calls/emails. I tell them that I put them on my list of companies never to do business with. On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: > > Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming. > > That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know > exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective > gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the > spamming will not only continue, it will increase. (As we've seen: > over and over and over again.) That's because they don't care about > being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits. > > So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I > may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely > unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative > financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates > indefinitely. > > If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and > you take no action except to continue giving them the means to > hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, > then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't > scaling well". > --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG > > ---rsk
Overreact much? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Anderson" <cra@WPI.EDU> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 12:47:17 PM Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees I've started keeping a list of companies who make unsolicited calls/emails. I tell them that I put them on my list of companies never to do business with. On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: > > Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming. > > That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know > exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective > gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the > spamming will not only continue, it will increase. (As we've seen: > over and over and over again.) That's because they don't care about > being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits. > > So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I > may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely > unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative > financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates > indefinitely. > > If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and > you take no action except to continue giving them the means to > hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, > then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't > scaling well". > --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG > > ---rsk
From: "Chuck Anderson" <cra@WPI.EDU> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 12:47:17 PM Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees
I've started keeping a list of companies who make unsolicited calls/emails. I tell them that I put them on my list of companies never to do business with.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:02:12PM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
Overreact much?
Mike -- I suspect he *under*Reacts. I go so far as giving out unique e-mail whenever possible so that I can track the origin of scraped addresses... *And* I remind sales folks (and their bosses) why I won't buy from them. I guess they should be happy that I don't sign a lot of orders anymore... :-)
That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products? -mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming.
That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the spamming will not only continue, it will increase. (As we've seen: over and over and over again.) That's because they don't care about being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits.
So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates indefinitely.
If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and you take no action except to continue giving them the means to hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't scaling well". --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
---rsk
It's funny to see all this apologia for nanog spammers and attempts to normalize the practice and brush it off as acceptable or unavoidable, especially after the "omg evil politicans voted to rollback fcc privacy rules and let companies sell your data" derpy derp thread. You can't have it both ways. -Dan
Dan, And your proposed solution is? -mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Dan Hollis <goemon@sasami.anime.net> wrote:
It's funny to see all this apologia for nanog spammers and attempts to normalize the practice and brush it off as acceptable or unavoidable, especially after the "omg evil politicans voted to rollback fcc privacy rules and let companies sell your data" derpy derp thread.
You can't have it both ways.
-Dan
On June 13, 2017 at 22:16 niels=nanog@bakker.net (Niels Bakker) wrote:
* mel@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) [Tue 13 Jun 2017, 21:26 CEST]:
And your proposed solution is?
Simple. Stop buying from spammers.
Although a perfectly reasonable suggestion the problem is that the cost of spamming is so low that even yielding zero clients isn't much of a loss. And if just one person finds the tease interesting it's a big win for the vendor. So there's a huge scaling advantage with spam, always has been. It's more akin to someone going thru your neighborhood with a vehicle with a bullhorn at 3AM suggesting some product. Merely deciding not to patronize them may not be sufficient and that's why we make that sort of thing just outright illegal rather than hope market forces will suffice. Another problem is that even with zero direct returns the sender gets other value. The usual rule of thumb used to be that you had to see an ad about eight times before your were likely to remember the product. So, spam, 7 more times. And branding. You goog for a particular type of router or whatever and you're hit with several that seem like they'd do the job. But you don't recognize the vendor names which makes you uneasy...except that one, hmm, that's a familiar name...not sure why...ok let's give them a closer look... They're getting value even if not immediately obvious. And you'll probably forget they spammed you long before you stop recognizing their name as familiar. The point is why should they get all that value for just about free? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
Merely deciding not to patronize them may not be sufficient and that's why we make that sort of thing just outright illegal rather than hope market forces will suffice.
Most spam is sent from compromised machines anyway, so there are already criminal violations involved in sending spam. -Dan
On June 14, 2017 at 14:22 goemon@sasami.anime.net (Dan Hollis) wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
Merely deciding not to patronize them may not be sufficient and that's why we make that sort of thing just outright illegal rather than hope market forces will suffice.
Most spam is sent from compromised machines anyway, so there are already criminal violations involved in sending spam.
FWIW I believe the context was a vendor spamming NANOG attendees (see the Subject:) so not likely being done from compromised machines. That said, yes, a lot of spam is sent from compromised machines as you say. But criminal violations can be additive, even rising to things like RICO charges (a pattern of organized criminal behavior etc.) which can be both criminal and civil and added onto charges like the criminality of specific mechanisms (compromised systems etc.) It really depends on how interested one can get the legal machinery in the problem. Thus far that's hit or miss. I can't find any instance where RICO charges were used against a spam gang tho, at least on a quick search. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:47:23PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote:
That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products?
I don't think there's a mechanism to do that. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) However, I think it's feasible to construct a list and make it publicly available so that folks can consult it before making purchase decisions. ---rsk
I think it would too subject to wild variance in what someone views as bad. Actual SPAM (viagra, Nigerian prices, etc.), of course. Industry-related SPAM, probably. Targeted marketing (looking for someone at Facebook, seeing someone from Facebook and tracking them down... or seeing someone at someone in a specific area or...) ehh, probably not ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk@gsp.org> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:47:03 PM Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:47:23PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote:
That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products?
I don't think there's a mechanism to do that. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) However, I think it's feasible to construct a list and make it publicly available so that folks can consult it before making purchase decisions. ---rsk
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think it would too subject to wild variance in what someone views as bad. Actual SPAM (viagra, Nigerian prices, etc.), of course. Industry-related SPAM, probably. Targeted marketing (looking for someone at Facebook, seeing someone from Facebook and tracking them down... or seeing someone at someone in a specific area or...) ehh, probably not
Do you view collecting lists of nanog members and using it for unsolicited marketing purposes as bad or not? -Dan
Does it fit into one of the categories I defined? I wasn't overly clear in the second example of the last category. Seeing someone working for someone that's in a specific area and then reaching out to them about something specific to their area... probably not. Further examples of yes\no for targeted marketing: Most any equipment vendor, unless it's quite geographically specific to someone, no, not unique enough. New provider, data center, IX, etc. geographically near a given company and they find "you" work at that company... sure, that seems like a perfectly valid use. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Hollis" <goemon@sasami.anime.net> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:16:57 PM Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think it would too subject to wild variance in what someone views as bad. Actual SPAM (viagra, Nigerian prices, etc.), of course. Industry-related SPAM, probably. Targeted marketing (looking for someone at Facebook, seeing someone from Facebook and tracking them down... or seeing someone at someone in a specific area or...) ehh, probably not
Do you view collecting lists of nanog members and using it for unsolicited marketing purposes as bad or not? -Dan
If they paid for a booth at beer & gear (i.e.; indirectly bought me a drink), then I'd give them _one_ pass on a targeted email. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474
On 6/13/17 1:56 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think it would too subject to wild variance in what someone views as bad.
Actual SPAM (viagra, Nigerian prices, etc.), of course. Industry-related SPAM, probably. Targeted marketing (looking for someone at Facebook, seeing someone from Facebook and tracking them down... or seeing someone at someone in a specific area or...) ehh, probably not "Targeted marketing" is spam. The NANOG attendee list is a target. Downtown Fallujah was a target.
As a rule, being targeted is shortly followed by being fired upon. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
In message <38E506A8-247A-478F-9C4D-21602BEE6028@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writes:
That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products?
Everyone that has received the email bring a action under the CAN-SPAM act. Really if you don't want the list to be harvested, which is illegal under the act, bring the action. Opt out doesn't save the sender if they have already committed a illegal act. Mark
-mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming.
That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the spamming will not only continue, it will increase. (As we've seen: over and over and over again.) That's because they don't care about being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits.
So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates indefinitely.
If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and you take no action except to continue giving them the means to hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't scaling well". --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
---rsk
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Mark, The problem with your idea is that these NANOG attendee emails aren't illegal under CAN-SPAM. This toothless Act let's anyone email any address they want, however obtained, with virtually any content (except sexually explicit), as long as they don't use misleading headers, deceptive subject lines, or obscure the fact that the email is an ad. Those features, plus clear identification of the originator and an opt-out mechanism, let anyone send unlimited spam. So, in reality, these so-called NANOG spammers are within the law. We just don't like what they're doing. We definitely can't sue them as you advise. In fact, individual CANT use under CAN-SPAM. Only we network operators can. Thanks for nothing, Congress. -mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <38E506A8-247A-478F-9C4D-21602BEE6028@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writes:
That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products?
Everyone that has received the email bring a action under the CAN-SPAM act. Really if you don't want the list to be harvested, which is illegal under the act, bring the action. Opt out doesn't save the sender if they have already committed a illegal act.
Mark
-mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming.
That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the spamming will not only continue, it will increase. (As we've seen: over and over and over again.) That's because they don't care about being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits.
So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates indefinitely.
If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and you take no action except to continue giving them the means to hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't scaling well". --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
---rsk
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
In message <F7E1F127-E971-4E92-AF44-13193BD0E27F@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writes:
Mark,
The problem with your idea is that these NANOG attendee emails aren't illegal under CAN-SPAM. This toothless Act let's anyone email any address they want, however obtained, with virtually any content (except sexually explicit), as long as they don't use misleading headers, deceptive subject lines, or obscure the fact that the email is an ad. Those features, plus clear identification of the originator and an opt-out mechanism, let anyone send unlimited spam.
The act of harvesting the email addresses is illegal which makes the subsequent emails illegal even if they meet all the other requirements of the CAN-SPAM act.
So, in reality, these so-called NANOG spammers are within the law. We just don't like what they're doing.
We definitely can't sue them as you advise. In fact, individual CANT use under CAN-SPAM. Only we network operators can.
Thanks for nothing, Congress.
As someone with stonger local anti-spam legislation that has to put up with the spam from US sources I have to agree. Mark
-mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <38E506A8-247A-478F-9C4D-21602BEE6028@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writes:
That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products?
Everyone that has received the email bring a action under the CAN-SPAM act. Really if you don't want the list to be harvested, which is illegal under the act, bring the action. Opt out doesn't save the sender if they have already committed a illegal act.
Mark
-mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming.
That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the spamming will not only continue, it will increase. (As we've seen: over and over and over again.) That's because they don't care about being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits.
So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates indefinitely.
If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and you take no action except to continue giving them the means to hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't scaling well". --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
---rsk
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Mark, What law makes the harvesting of email addresses illegal? None that I know of. -mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <F7E1F127-E971-4E92-AF44-13193BD0E27F@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writes:
Mark,
The problem with your idea is that these NANOG attendee emails aren't illegal under CAN-SPAM. This toothless Act let's anyone email any address they want, however obtained, with virtually any content (except sexually explicit), as long as they don't use misleading headers, deceptive subject lines, or obscure the fact that the email is an ad. Those features, plus clear identification of the originator and an opt-out mechanism, let anyone send unlimited spam.
The act of harvesting the email addresses is illegal which makes the subsequent emails illegal even if they meet all the other requirements of the CAN-SPAM act.
So, in reality, these so-called NANOG spammers are within the law. We just don't like what they're doing.
We definitely can't sue them as you advise. In fact, individual CANT use under CAN-SPAM. Only we network operators can.
Thanks for nothing, Congress.
As someone with stonger local anti-spam legislation that has to put up with the spam from US sources I have to agree.
Mark
-mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <38E506A8-247A-478F-9C4D-21602BEE6028@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writes:
That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products?
Everyone that has received the email bring a action under the CAN-SPAM act. Really if you don't want the list to be harvested, which is illegal under the act, bring the action. Opt out doesn't save the sender if they have already committed a illegal act.
Mark
-mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming.
That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the spamming will not only continue, it will increase. (As we've seen: over and over and over again.) That's because they don't care about being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits.
So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates indefinitely.
If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and you take no action except to continue giving them the means to hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't scaling well". --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
---rsk
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
In message <A9D2D1BE-0724-4CBB-ACE3-8D2DE9C8928C@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writes:
Mark,
What law makes the harvesting of email addresses illegal? None that I know of.
If you can trust wikipedia sending to harvested addresses is illegal under CAN-SPAM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003 While this is not US law, the act of harvesting addresses is illegal under the Australian anti-spam act https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00614 Mark
-mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <F7E1F127-E971-4E92-AF44-13193BD0E27F@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writes:
Mark,
The problem with your idea is that these NANOG attendee emails aren't illegal under CAN-SPAM. This toothless Act let's anyone email any address they want, however obtained, with virtually any content (except sexually explicit), as long as they don't use misleading headers, deceptive subject lines, or obscure the fact that the email is an ad. Those features, plus clear identification of the originator and an opt-out mechanism, let anyone send unlimited spam.
The act of harvesting the email addresses is illegal which makes the subsequent emails illegal even if they meet all the other requirements of the CAN-SPAM act.
So, in reality, these so-called NANOG spammers are within the law. We just don't like what they're doing.
We definitely can't sue them as you advise. In fact, individual CANT use under CAN-SPAM. Only we network operators can.
Thanks for nothing, Congress.
As someone with stonger local anti-spam legislation that has to put up with the spam from US sources I have to agree.
Mark
-mel via cell
On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <38E506A8-247A-478F-9C4D-21602BEE6028@beckman.org>, Mel Beckman writes:
That still leaves the question: how to you invoke this financial punishment? Prohibit NANOG members from buying their products?
Everyone that has received the email bring a action under the CAN-SPAM act. Really if you don't want the list to be harvested, which is illegal under the act, bring the action. Opt out doesn't save the sender if they have already committed a illegal act.
Mark
-mel via cell
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:12 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:31:46PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote: > Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming.
That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the spamming will not only continue, it will increase. (As we've seen: over and over and over again.) That's because they don't care about being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits.
So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates indefinitely.
If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and you take no action except to continue giving them the means to hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't scaling well". --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
---rsk
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On 6/13/17 1:12 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
That excuse stopped being viable sometime in the last century. They know exactly what they're doing, they're just counting on the prospective gains to outweigh the prospective losses. If they're right, then the spamming will not only continue, it will increase. (As we've seen: over and over and over again.) That's because they don't care about being professional or responsible or ethical: they only care about profits.
Isn't that why we all work in this industry? Sure it's fun, but at the end of month it's that sizable deposit in our checking (or chequeing) accounts.
So the choice is clear: either make it plain to such "people" (if I may dignify sociopathic filth with that term) that this is absolutely unacceptable and that it will have serious, immediate, ongoing negative financial consequences, or do nothing while the problem escalates indefinitely.
If you give people the means to hurt you, and they do it, and you take no action except to continue giving them the means to hurt you, and they take no action except to keep hurting you, then one of the ways you can describe the situation is "it isn't scaling well". --- Paul Vixie, on NANOG
It's vendor spam. It's annoying, but it's not life or death. Educate/shame, and move on. When it happens the second time, then get your pitchforks and rifles out :) how I feel about it: https://i.imgur.com/v7SJdmq.png -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net
On 6/13/17 8:31 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
I would hardly call this a flood. But my point is that most people posting to NANOG, being technical people, respond to notifications that they are spamming. Your example email illustrates this perfectly. Sometimes they're ignorant and don't realize they're spamming.
This guy definitely knew he was spamming and didn't care. "We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG...." And he didn't even attend, though someone from his company did.
If they're persistent they get removed from the list
This isn't about spam to this list, it's about spammers scraping the attendee lists and spamming them directly.
I made my suggestion.
Shoot them at dawn? I kind of like that idea. +1. Guillotine, however, makes heads on pikes as a deterrent less messy.
What's yours?
Name and shame. As Rodney did. Maybe seed the attendee lists with a spamtrap or two and publicly out the abusers on the NANOG website. Very few of them will openly brag about spamming the list as Glenn Stern (gstern@calient.net) did. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern (gstern@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70. ... Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
traditional community attitudes left the building long ago. nanog has become a trade show, for which this is normal behavior. i expect mail "stop by our booth at nanog 42," and so forth. randy
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that? -mel via cell On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:44 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern (gstern@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70. ... Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
traditional community attitudes left the building long ago. nanog has become a trade show, for which this is normal behavior. i expect mail "stop by our booth at nanog 42," and so forth.
randy
On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that?
Because he said so?
The spammer had the balls to say, in his email:
We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
It looks like there are more spams coming from these discussions than from the original Scams/Spams.. Ge
Le 14 juin 2017 à 14:26, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com> a écrit :
On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that?
Because he said so?
The spammer had the balls to say, in his email:
We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
Ge, On the contrary, the discussion has been limited, focused, and amazingly civil for NANOG :) I find it valuable. -mel On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Ge Dupin <gdupin@taho.fr<mailto:gdupin@taho.fr>> wrote: It looks like there are more spams coming from these discussions than from the original Scams/Spams.. Ge Le 14 juin 2017 à 14:26, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com<mailto:rjoffe@centergate.com>> a écrit : On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> wrote: But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that? Because he said so? The spammer had the balls to say, in his email: We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
I guess that explains why so many newcomers are confused about what spam is.
On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Ge Dupin <gdupin@taho.fr> wrote:
It looks like there are more spams coming from these discussions than from the original Scams/Spams.. Ge
Le 14 juin 2017 à 14:26, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com> a écrit :
On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that?
Because he said so?
The spammer had the balls to say, in his email:
> > We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
Agree, this thread has generated more "spam" or noise for all of us collectively. Some amount of relevant "spam" has to be tolerated for vendor to continue supporting NANOG. Also relevant "spam" or sales call is a good way to find out about new technologies , that one may not have heard about otherwise. Another tip, just ignore, the "spammer" will go away eventually. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Rodney Joffe<rjoffe@centergate.com> wrote: I guess that explains why so many newcomers are confused about what spam is.
On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:33 AM, Ge Dupin <gdupin@taho.fr> wrote:
It looks like there are more spams coming from these discussions than from the original Scams/Spams.. Ge
Le 14 juin 2017 à 14:26, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com> a écrit :
On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that?
Because he said so?
The spammer had the balls to say, in his email:
> > We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
Rodney, You make a good point. But I wonder how often spammers are so obvious, and I wonder if his "leveraging" falls amiss of CAN-SPAM's specific prohibition: (I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the users of a website, proprietary service, or other online public forum operated by another person, without the authorization of such person; and (II) randomly generating electronic mail addresses by computer; Technically, this spammer harvested the names of attendees at a physical conference, not of some online resource, which is what CAN-SPAM prohibits. I know it's splitting hairs, but that's what spammers do. My point is that CAN-SPAM is virtually useless. There have been a handful of prosecutions in more than a decade, and spammers are not seeming to be deterred. I know there are honeypots that try to catch electronic harvesters, but I don't think they could provide proof of someone who got his emails from a list of attendees at an event, a shared customer list, etc. -mel On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:26 AM, Rodney Joffe <rjoffe@centergate.com<mailto:rjoffe@centergate.com>> wrote: On Jun 13, 2017, at 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> wrote: But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that? Because he said so? The spammer had the balls to say, in his email: We do not know each other. I'm leveraging the attendee list for NANOG to reach out and raise awareness of the value of OCS (Optical Circuit Switching) in the data center and in particular, the Carrier Neutral Hotel where we've been active with next generation MeetMeRoom discussions.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 01:21:21PM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote:
Rodney,
You make a good point. But I wonder how often spammers are so obvious, and I wonder if his "leveraging" falls amiss of CAN-SPAM's specific prohibition:
(I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the users of a website, proprietary service, or other online public forum operated by another person, without the authorization of such person; and
(II) randomly generating electronic mail addresses by computer;
Technically, this spammer harvested the names of attendees at a physical conference, not of some online resource, which is what CAN-SPAM prohibits. I know it's splitting hairs, but that's what spammers do.
There is no such specific prohibition in CAN-SPAM. The section of CAN SPAN from which you are quoting (15 USC 7703) instructs the Sentencing Commission to consider sentence enhancements for criminals convicted under existing computer crimes laws if they did one of the two things you list above. The part you left out (and which immediately precedes the part you quoted) reads: (2) In carrying out this subsection, the Sentencing Commission shall consider providing sentencing enhancements for— (A) those convicted under section 1037 of title 18 who— (i) obtained electronic mail addresses through improper means, including— [ then (I) and (II) from above ] Merely sending non-misleading spam does not violate 18 USC 1037.
My point is that CAN-SPAM is virtually useless. There have been a handful of prosecutions in more than a decade, and spammers are not seeming to be deterred.
I know there are honeypots that try to catch electronic harvesters, but I don't think they could provide proof of someone who got his emails from a list of attendees at an event, a shared customer list, etc.
And even if someone did, no crime is committed. But if someone uses those addresses in the commission of another crime, he might go to prison for longer. -- Brett
In article <63CD2031-701D-4567-B88A-2986E8B3F359@beckman.org> you write:
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam.
This might be a good time to review 15 USC 7704(b)(1), which is titled "Address harvesting and dictionary attacks".
And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that?
This is law, not software. If a bunch of people who went to a trade show get spam to the addresses they used when they registered, well, duh. R's, John
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 02:02:47PM -0000, John Levine wrote:
In article <63CD2031-701D-4567-B88A-2986E8B3F359@beckman.org> you write:
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam.
This might be a good time to review 15 USC 7704(b)(1), which is titled "Address harvesting and dictionary attacks".
When reviewing it, make sure to read the whole thing. Including the part where it doesn't prohibit those things (harvesting and dictionary attacks), but, instead, declares that those things are aggravating factors if done my someone as part of doing things that are prohibited by the section that actually prohibits things, which is 7704(a). -- Brett
Hello, We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I can't seem to find any. Chiel
Hi, most 10GE cards have either direct 10GBASE-T port(s)s or SFP+ slot(s). The SFP+ transceiver you plug in determines the range. (SMF/MMF, wavelength, link budget) Reading the optical parameters is a bit tricky on most NICs. Karsten 2017-06-15 11:10 GMT+02:00 chiel <chiel@gmx.net>:
Hello,
We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I can't seem to find any.
Chiel
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, chiel wrote:
Hello,
We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I can't seem to find any.
The Intel XF SR2 card actually has XFPs and I have LR optics in one here. I don't see any reason it wouldn't support ER or ZR as well. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Hi, Remember to check the power available to the XFP/SFP+. Its the most common issue related with achievable distance. We worked with optic.ca to figured out that type of issue with some extreme network gear and after a few "patches" to the XGm board, it's been stable since. ----- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 06/20/17 03:54, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, chiel wrote:
Hello,
We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I can't seem to find any.
The Intel XF SR2 card actually has XFPs and I have LR optics in one here. I don't see any reason it wouldn't support ER or ZR as well.
As a thought, would seem to make sense to modularize that server nic so we can slide in whatever optic we desire...copper, fiber short mm, fiber long range sm, etc -Aaron
We use Intel NICs with SFP+ holes. It works good with long and short range SFP+ modules, including CWDM/DWDM. On 15.06.17 12:10, chiel wrote:
Hello,
We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I can't seem to find any.
Chiel
I guess it depends on NIC, there is many spinoffs of Intel X520 with much weaker power supply circuitry. It might work with good NIC, but you can't rely on it on long term, IMHO. Even 40km Finisar SFP+ has Pdiss 1.5W. Also they mention: "The typical power consumption of the FTLX1672D3BTL may exceed the limit of 1.5W specified for the Power Level II transceivers" If we talk about 80km, Pdiss is 1.8W. While 10GBASE-LR is <1W On 2017-06-20 16:30, Max Tulyev wrote:
We use Intel NICs with SFP+ holes. It works good with long and short range SFP+ modules, including CWDM/DWDM.
On 15.06.17 12:10, chiel wrote:
Hello,
We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I can't seem to find any.
Chiel
I would expect anything mounted in a computer to have all the power you could want. It is not like the ATX power supply cares about an extra watt or two. As I understand the issue it is more about cooling than power and is primarly a concern in high density switches were you could have 48 or more to power and cool. Den 20. jun. 2017 18.09 skrev "Denys Fedoryshchenko" <denys@visp.net.lb>:
I guess it depends on NIC, there is many spinoffs of Intel X520 with much weaker power supply circuitry. It might work with good NIC, but you can't rely on it on long term, IMHO. Even 40km Finisar SFP+ has Pdiss 1.5W. Also they mention: "The typical power consumption of the FTLX1672D3BTL may exceed the limit of 1.5W specified for the Power Level II transceivers" If we talk about 80km, Pdiss is 1.8W. While 10GBASE-LR is <1W
On 2017-06-20 16:30, Max Tulyev wrote:
We use Intel NICs with SFP+ holes. It works good with long and short range SFP+ modules, including CWDM/DWDM.
On 15.06.17 12:10, chiel wrote:
Hello,
We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I can't seem to find any.
Chiel
I would expect anything mounted in a computer to have all the power you could want. It is not like the ATX power supply cares about an extra watt or two.
As I understand the issue it is more about cooling than power and is primarly a concern in high density switches were you could have 48 or more to power and cool. SFP needs 3.3V, it might be supplied from regulator on the card or
On 2017-06-20 22:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote: directly PCI-Express, can't be absolutely sure, in reference design it is just 3.3V_NIA and then filter, also reference design SFP power circuit define max 750mA/3.3V max to SFP, thats only 2.475W. FTLX1471D3BCV (10km SM) - up to 285mA FTLX1671D3BCL (40km SM) - up to 400mA, and thumb rule in electronics it is better to not exceed 50% of max specs of designed max current, as for many parts it is stated for 25C & etc operating conditions. I expect it might work, but noone knows how long, and how reliable, if it is not cooled very well. And 82599 sensitive to cooling(it is very old card after all), as soon as it is not enough, it starts to glitch.
Den 20. jun. 2017 18.09 skrev "Denys Fedoryshchenko" <denys@visp.net.lb>:
I guess it depends on NIC, there is many spinoffs of Intel X520 with much weaker power supply circuitry. It might work with good NIC, but you can't rely on it on long term, IMHO. Even 40km Finisar SFP+ has Pdiss 1.5W. Also they mention: "The typical power consumption of the FTLX1672D3BTL may exceed the limit of 1.5W specified for the Power Level II transceivers" If we talk about 80km, Pdiss is 1.8W. While 10GBASE-LR is <1W
On 2017-06-20 16:30, Max Tulyev wrote:
We use Intel NICs with SFP+ holes. It works good with long and short range SFP+ modules, including CWDM/DWDM.
On 15.06.17 12:10, chiel wrote:
Hello,
We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I can't seem to find any.
Chiel
The real question here is: will my NIC support other SFP+ modules than the few options carried by the NIC vendor? For example Intel claims the Intel NICs can only accept SFP+ modules by Intel. They probably do not make optics themselves and only have few options available. And indeed if you put in a third party optic it will be rejected. There are two ways around that. One is finding a device driver with vendor check disabled. The other option is to get optics that pretend to be Intel. You can get optics with vendor ID many places. A good place to start is Fiberstore fs.com because they have public pricing on the website. With the vendor id the answer to the question is that all NICs with SFP+ I ever heard about will support any range, WDM or other special SFP+ module. Regards, Baldur Den 20. jun. 2017 02.59 skrev "chiel" <chiel@gmx.net>:
Hello,
We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I can't seem to find any.
Chiel
On 6/20/17 8:15 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
The real question here is: will my NIC support other SFP+ modules than the few options carried by the NIC vendor?
For example Intel claims the Intel NICs can only accept SFP+ modules by Intel. They probably do not make optics themselves and only have few options available. And indeed if you put in a third party optic it will be rejected.
The last I looked -- and it's been a few years, so it might no longer be true -- the check for this was in the driver software, which is open-sourced. The check was even guarded by an ifdef so that it was easily disabled. If you disabled the check, you got a hyperventilating syslog warning saying you were taking your life into your hands by using unapproved equipment. That warning could then be ignored while it receded into rotated and, eventually, expunged log history. As I said, that was a few years ago, so would need to be reconfirmed. Jim
Nowadays its just an ixgbe-parameter: parm: allow_unsupported_sfp:Allow unsupported and untested SFP+ modules on 82599-based adapters (uint) Jörg On 20 Jun 2017, at 17:26, Jim Shankland wrote:
The last I looked -- and it's been a few years, so it might no longer be true -- the check for this was in the driver software, which is open-sourced. The check was even guarded by an ifdef so that it was easily disabled. If you disabled the check, you got a hyperventilating syslog warning saying you were taking your life into your hands by using unapproved equipment. That warning could then be ignored while it receded into rotated and, eventually, expunged log history.
As I said, that was a few years ago, so would need to be reconfirmed.
Jim
I have used 3rd party Cisco coded optics in an Intel SFP card successfully, but it won't be "officially supported". Oli On 20 June 2017 at 16:15, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
The real question here is: will my NIC support other SFP+ modules than the few options carried by the NIC vendor?
For example Intel claims the Intel NICs can only accept SFP+ modules by Intel. They probably do not make optics themselves and only have few options available. And indeed if you put in a third party optic it will be rejected.
There are two ways around that. One is finding a device driver with vendor check disabled. The other option is to get optics that pretend to be Intel.
You can get optics with vendor ID many places. A good place to start is Fiberstore fs.com because they have public pricing on the website.
With the vendor id the answer to the question is that all NICs with SFP+ I ever heard about will support any range, WDM or other special SFP+ module.
Regards,
Baldur
Den 20. jun. 2017 02.59 skrev "chiel" <chiel@gmx.net>:
Hello,
We are deploying more and more server based routers (based on BSD). We have now come to the point where we need to have 10GB uplinks one these devices and I prefer to plug in a long range 10GB fiber straight into the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I can't seem to find any.
Chiel
-- Oliver Elliott Senior Network Specialist IT Services, University of Bristol t: 0117 39 (41131)
Once upon a time, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> said:
There are two ways around that. One is finding a device driver with vendor check disabled. The other option is to get optics that pretend to be Intel.
For Linux at least, the standard driver includes a load-time option to disable vendor check. Just add "options ixgbe allow_unsupported_sfp=1" to your module config and it works just fine. "ethtool -m" reads the DOM fine as well (actually shows more info than some router/switch OSes). -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:29 AM Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
For Linux at least, the standard driver includes a load-time option to disable vendor check. Just add "options ixgbe allow_unsupported_sfp=1" to your module config and it works just fine.
For anyone who may be going down this road, if you have a two-port Intel NIC, I discovered you have to pass "allow_unsupported_sfp=1,1" or it will only apply to the first port. Hope that helps someone. -- -- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBH Annex B-5 +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure
On 2017-06-20 18:59, Hunter Fuller wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:29 AM Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
For Linux at least, the standard driver includes a load-time option to disable vendor check. Just add "options ixgbe allow_unsupported_sfp=1" to your module config and it works just fine.
For anyone who may be going down this road, if you have a two-port Intel NIC, I discovered you have to pass "allow_unsupported_sfp=1,1" or it will only apply to the first port. Hope that helps someone. Also it wont work with X710, you need to do NVRAM hack for it, SFP are checked in firmware.
On 20 June 2017 at 17:10, Denys Fedoryshchenko <denys@visp.net.lb> wrote:
On 2017-06-20 18:59, Hunter Fuller wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:29 AM Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
For Linux at least, the standard driver includes a load-time option to disable vendor check. Just add "options ixgbe allow_unsupported_sfp=1" to your module config and it works just fine.
For anyone who may be going down this road, if you have a two-port Intel NIC, I discovered you have to pass "allow_unsupported_sfp=1,1" or it will only apply to the first port. Hope that helps someone.
Also it wont work with X710, you need to do NVRAM hack for it, SFP are checked in firmware.
We have third party SFPs in X710 "based" NIC. To be exact we some HPE servers which have a "HPE Ethernet 10Gb 2-port 562SFP+ Adapter" which uses an OEM X710 controller branded as HP. So it maybe that the HP SoC on the NIC is allowing us to use any SFP. We haven't added any kernel module load parameters to make that work or NVRAM hacks, we just flashed the NIC to the lasted firmware version upon arrival as a general good practice move and compiled the latest i40e & i40evf drivers. We have third party 10G SFP+'s (single more / 10Km / LC) working and 1G copper SFPs too, the ports are multi-rate. Again this may be something special about the HP NIC and the X710 controller is ignorant of the PHY <> MAC conversation or something. Cheers, James.
On 6/15/2017 5:10 AM, chiel wrote:
the server without it going first into a router/switch from vendor x. It seems to me that all the 10GB PCIe cards only support either copper 10GBASE-T, short range 10GBASE-SR or the 10 Km 10GBASE-LR (but only very few). Are there any PCIe cards that support 10GBASE-ER and 10GBASE-ZR? I can't seem to find any.
The chelsio 10G (T420 and T520) cards seem to support a wide variety. I only have a couple of LR SFPs. Not sure about longer distances but they seem to support every SFP I have tried in them. They are relatively inexpensive. Perhaps give it a try and see ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/
On 6/13/17 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that? Seed the list with one or two spamtrap addresses never seen in the wild. Wait.
In this case, the spammer was stupid enough hot only to abuse a list of technical people who run networks, but to brag about it within the body of the spam. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
Does anyone else feel this thread has generated more spam in their inbox than the vendors? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
On 6/13/17 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that?
Seed the list with one or two spamtrap addresses never seen in the wild. Wait.
In this case, the spammer was stupid enough hot only to abuse a list of technical people who run networks, but to brag about it within the body of the spam.
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
I think so And I said it a coulpe of times already Ge
Le 21 juin 2017 à 15:25, Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> a écrit :
Does anyone else feel this thread has generated more spam in their inbox than the vendors?
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
On 6/13/17 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that?
Seed the list with one or two spamtrap addresses never seen in the wild. Wait.
In this case, the spammer was stupid enough hot only to abuse a list of technical people who run networks, but to brag about it within the body of the spam.
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
I was just thinking that as I caught up on the thread. I ignore unsolicited sales contacts as a general rule. If they persist to the point of annoyance, I'll kindly advise them that I'm not interested, and ask they cease. If they still persist, I'll drop out the 'I'll never do business with you, and will start advising my peers not to do so either.' It's very rare things ever get that far. Just ignore it. Or if you're feeling saucy, go full on '419 Eater' on them and burn up as much of their time as possible. I have no ethical issues about wasting someone's time after they've been asked politely not to waste mine. On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
Does anyone else feel this thread has generated more spam in their inbox than the vendors?
Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
On 6/13/17 10:28 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
But as I said, harvesting emails is not illegal under can spam. And the requirement to not send you UCE to harvested emails is pointless, because how do you prove that someone did that?
Seed the list with one or two spamtrap addresses never seen in the wild. Wait.
In this case, the spammer was stupid enough hot only to abuse a list of technical people who run networks, but to brag about it within the body of the spam.
-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern (gstern@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70. ... Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
traditional community attitudes left the building long ago. nanog has become a trade show, for which this is normal behavior. i expect mail "stop by our booth at nanog 42," and so forth.
This is highly inaccurate. The PC and Board have done everything in our power to keep sponsorship out of the program. Yes, Beer & Gear looks like a NASCAR race, but that helps fund not only the program, but the numerous other outreach programs that NANOG has undertaken. Sponsors who have stepped on the rules have had their sponsorship rights revoked - temporarily, and in egregious cases, permanently. We (the NANOG organization) take this incredibly seriously. While it's hard to solve for the exact case above (scraping registrant lists and then comparing to CRM to glean contact info) we absolutely do aggressively pursue any abuse of NANOG's attendee information, trademarks, and mailing list. -Dave Temkin Chair, NANOG Board of Directors
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Dave Temkin wrote:
This is highly inaccurate. The PC and Board have done everything in our power to keep sponsorship out of the program. Yes, Beer & Gear looks like a NASCAR race, but that helps fund not only the program, but the numerous other outreach programs that NANOG has undertaken.
Sponsors who have stepped on the rules have had their sponsorship rights revoked - temporarily, and in egregious cases, permanently. We (the NANOG organization) take this incredibly seriously.
While it's hard to solve for the exact case above (scraping registrant lists and then comparing to CRM to glean contact info) we absolutely do aggressively pursue any abuse of NANOG's attendee information, trademarks, and mailing list.
Is it too simple a solution to post a warning on the page above the Attendee List saying something along the lines of "scraping the Attendee List for marketing purposes is forbidden, will result in public shaming, and may cause some attendees to completely boycott your company." ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Dave Temkin wrote:
This is highly inaccurate. The PC and Board have done everything in our
power to keep sponsorship out of the program. Yes, Beer & Gear looks like a NASCAR race, but that helps fund not only the program, but the numerous other outreach programs that NANOG has undertaken.
Sponsors who have stepped on the rules have had their sponsorship rights revoked - temporarily, and in egregious cases, permanently. We (the NANOG organization) take this incredibly seriously.
While it's hard to solve for the exact case above (scraping registrant lists and then comparing to CRM to glean contact info) we absolutely do aggressively pursue any abuse of NANOG's attendee information, trademarks, and mailing list.
Is it too simple a solution to post a warning on the page above the Attendee List saying something along the lines of "scraping the Attendee List for marketing purposes is forbidden, will result in public shaming, and may cause some attendees to completely boycott your company." ?
This suggestion was made on the NANOG Facebook group and we will implement it with the new website coming before NANOG 71. -Dave
And how do you tell if an address was scraped or not? There are databases and zillions of other ways of gaining addresses. I doubt you can distinguish the source with any real reliability. - R. ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Dave Temkin <dave@temk.in> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 11:05 PM To: Jon Lewis Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Dave Temkin wrote:
This is highly inaccurate. The PC and Board have done everything in our
power to keep sponsorship out of the program. Yes, Beer & Gear looks like a NASCAR race, but that helps fund not only the program, but the numerous other outreach programs that NANOG has undertaken.
Sponsors who have stepped on the rules have had their sponsorship rights revoked - temporarily, and in egregious cases, permanently. We (the NANOG organization) take this incredibly seriously.
While it's hard to solve for the exact case above (scraping registrant lists and then comparing to CRM to glean contact info) we absolutely do aggressively pursue any abuse of NANOG's attendee information, trademarks, and mailing list.
Is it too simple a solution to post a warning on the page above the Attendee List saying something along the lines of "scraping the Attendee List for marketing purposes is forbidden, will result in public shaming, and may cause some attendees to completely boycott your company." ?
This suggestion was made on the NANOG Facebook group and we will implement it with the new website coming before NANOG 71. -Dave
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Rod Beck wrote:
And how do you tell if an address was scraped or not? There are databases and zillions of other ways of gaining addresses.
One-off addresses. I've used it numerous times to catch the origin, companies like Roland Corporation either leaking databases or selling to spammers. -Dan
participants (38)
-
Aaron Gould -
Alain Hebert -
Baldur Norddahl -
Brett Frankenberger -
Bryan Fields -
bzs＠theworld.com -
chiel -
Chris Adams -
Chuck Anderson -
Dan Hollis -
Dave Temkin -
Denys Fedoryshchenko -
Ge Dupin -
Hunter Fuller -
i mawsog -
James Bensley -
Jay Hennigan -
Jim Shankland -
Joe Hamelin -
John Levine -
John Osmon -
Jon Lewis -
Josh Luthman -
Jörg Kost -
Karsten Elfenbein -
Mark Andrews -
Max Tulyev -
Mel Beckman -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Mike Hammett -
Mike Tancsa -
Niels Bakker -
Oliver Elliott -
Randy Bush -
Rich Kulawiec -
Rod Beck -
Rodney Joffe -
Tom Beecher