[71930] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Henry Linneweh)
Fri Jun 25 13:51:15 2004
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Henry Linneweh <hrlinneweh@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Tom (UnitedLayer)" <tom@unitedlayer.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20040625102527.B39427-100000@smtp.unitedlayer.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I think that is a bit irresponsible for the simple
reason that MCI has many co-lo clients and any of
their machines could be vulnerable, I think also that
needs to addressed so that blanket statements are
supported by fact and not the need to competitively
break a company down in hopes the you can steal away
it's customer base....
-Henry
--- "Tom (UnitedLayer)" <tom@unitedlayer.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
> > At 04:00 PM 6/24/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> > >[ Operations content: ] Do you know of any ISP's
> null routing AS701?
> >
> > ISPs? Not of the top of my head. I know several
> businesses who have, and a
> > great many people who have blocked UUNet space
> from sending them email,
> > either by using SPEWS, the SBL, or
> mci.blackholes.us .
>
> Do these people know how much legitimate email
> they're missing, for every
> spam message that's blocked?
>
> I noticed that from my personal mailbox (which I do
> filter with spam
> assassin), for every one legit mail that gets
> blocked/tagged by SPEWS,
> there's maybe 1-2 junkmails. Thats not a very
> impressive ratio...
>
>
