[69690] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lazy network operators - NOT
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Hess)
Sun Apr 18 23:21:10 2004
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:09:04 -0600
From: Matt Hess <mhess@solarius.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <01a401c425b0$3b25c7a0$2a5b8b42@clickdoug.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I haven't seen it mentioned yet but I believe that some may be looking
for something like the lists at: http://www.blackholes.us/ and if it has
been mentioned already I apologize for the duplicate.
Doug White wrote:
>
>
> :
> :
> :
> : Lou Katz wrote:
> : >
> : > On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 02:01:45PM -0400, Jerry Eyers wrote:
> : > >
> : > > >Spamming is pervasive mainly due to the inattention or failure to
> enforce
> : > > >acceptable use policies by the service provider.
> : > >
> : > > I must point out that this statement is just flat wrong.
> : > >
> : > > Spamming exists because spamming works. Why do spammers send
> : > > out millions of emails? Because thousands of people click, look at, and
> : > > subscribe to services and products being spewed by the spammers.
> : > >
> : > > If spamming didn't sell products, spamming would die off. We must
> : > > educate the users to not do anything with spam but delete it. As from
> : > > the sucess of infomercials on television shows, that won't happen
> : > > anytime soon.
> : > >
> : >
> : > I think you are 'right on'. I offer this observation, first
> : > triggered by a third-hand report from some sociologists:
> :
> : Perhaps you'd both care to provide a methodology whereby the same fools
> : who respond to anatomical enlargement/improvement potions could be
> : successfully educated as to the foibles of responding to spam? All 150
> : million plus of them?
> :
> : And then perhaps compare that required effort and potential success to
> : that of applying consistent global pressure on the 100 or so networks
> : that host the compromised machines that are the unwitting gateways for
> : almost all of today's spam. Unfortunately, in many cases, the networks
> : do put enormous effort into disconnecting compromised boxes, but the
> : numbers are overwhelming (240,000 on one network alone in the last 2
> : weeks). That does not appear to be good enough any more.
> :
> : I'm with Paul.
> :
> : As Steve Bellovin has so frequently bleated: "Push the responsibility to
> : the edges, where it belongs".
> :
> : --
> Well, Paul did advance a methodology - blackhole them all <grin>
>
> I prefer to send a
>
> 550 IP blocked for USE - for resolution contact your service provider.
>
> Educating the masses who feel anatomically lacking, would be an impossible task
> for a server admin.
>
> Blocking the provider will hit them in the pocketbook, and usually gets
> attention at the highest executive level, when enough of their customers quit
> them.
>
> Remember it took AOL the loss of nearly 10 million subscribers to make them
> move against spam at all. Of course, we don't all agree with their
> methodology, but they are making the attempt.
>
> If just a few admins block Comcast (At&T) they will likely be ignored. If
> thousands of them block Comcast - they will become more pro-active, I submit.
>
> SBC-Yahoo has silently implemented spam filters that add X headers which the
> recipient can filter against. For instance I filter against X-overseas source
> blah blah
>
> As for doing something from a provider standpoint against those who will not
> install an a/v solution because it slows down their machine - or interferes
> with their MP3 files, or graphics editors, is another mountain to climb, but
> climb it they must.
>
> The individual mail server admin is a very small part of the big picture, but
> is responsible for his users, and must do as needed to re-capture the users'
> inbox for their legitimate use.
>
> The job becomes even more difficult when not everyone can agree on what is spam
> and what is legitimate.
>
> Maybe more rejects like : 550 postage due for commercial message delivery.
> :-)
>
>
>
>
>
