[54144] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Spam. Again.. -- and blocking net blocks?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Lixfeld)
Tue Dec 10 20:55:46 2002
From: Jason Lixfeld <jlixfeld@andromedas.com>
To: Scott Silzer <scotts@primus.ca>
Cc: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>,
"'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <p05200f00ba1c415e198d@[192.168.1.69]>
Date: 10 Dec 2002 20:54:14 -0500
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: jlixfeld@andromedas.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I like Segal's DoS idea, except instead of the packet generators, let's
be nice and just DDoS port 25 on the sunzofbiatches mail servers/load
balancers...
fight fire with fire... :)
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 20:39, Scott Silzer wrote:
> That is exactly what was done to to Futureway a third party spammed
> for a site hosted by a downstream ISP and the result was there entire
> network begging blacklisted by SPEWS.
>
> At 15:41 -0800 12/10/2002, David Schwartz wrote:
> >On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:45:29 -0500, Scott Silzer wrote:
> >
> >>I could understand if an ISP was allowing spam from a portion of
> >>there network. But in this case the only thing that the ISP did is
> >>host a website, the SPAM was sent from from a third party's network.
> >>The ISP did terminate the customer but in the meantime the entire
> >>NSP's network has been blacklisted, for a rouge webhosting account
> >>does sound a bit harsh.
> >
> > A spam blocking service that worked that way would be
> >useless. Anyone could
> >get any site they didn't like blacklisted simply by spamvertising it. Anyone
> >who uses a spam blocking list that works that way is DoSing themselves.
> >
> > DS
--
-JaL
"AFAIK, You think I'm a BOFH for continually bashing you over the head
with a clue-by-four. OTOH, if you would just RTFM every once in a
while, my life would suck *much* less."
