North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: while i'm on the subject of filtering, here's today's list of spammers

  • From: Paul A Vixie
  • Date: Wed Feb 19 19:29:30 1997

> > if you're listed and think you shouldn't be, give me a call (you can't send
> > me mail).  and yes, these same thieves are also prevented from reaching the
> > F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET host, but lack of reachability to one NS doesn't break
> > their service.
> It's still childish and unfair.  And if everyone does this, then sooner or
> later someone's going to get blocked because they said something nasty
> about the root server operator's mother or something equally trite.  I
> don't want to cry "free speech" but it will eventually become that kind of
> issue.

The people who have signed up to receive my blackhole feed in real time all
pretty much trust me to restrict my additions to things which violate the
cooperative economics underlying the 'net.  I take it that you weren't at the
San Francisco NANOG so you didn't get to hear my talk on this subject.

I will not have network resources I pay for, used to spam me, or to spam
others.  I have the right of use and/or disposal of my own property.  People
who spam are committing "theft of service" and my Ip reachability matrix is
better off without such people in it.

> I also fail to see how blocking them from one server restricts spammers in
> any way.  Explain that one to me.

It's not one server.  It's all of the folks who have signed up to receive my
real time BGP4 feed.  There are two continentwide ISPs so far, hopefully with
more to come.  (There are also smaller folks who by and large just want the
feed to protect their own servers rather than their transit customers, but
that's fine by me.)

> > why in the world are we discussing this on NANOG?
> I've no idea.  Perhaps you should have sent it to the individuals who are
> blocked instead (esp. considering most of them probably don't subscribe),
> or just not at all. 

I can't reach them directly, relaying through the NANOG listserv is the best
way to let folks know that they're in the black hole.  Three people removed
their spammer customers and asked me to remove them from the list last time
I published it, so my real plan -- that of provider education -- is working.

>                     I don't really care about spam domains, unless they
> spam me - in which case I procmail them into oblivion and that's that.

No, it isn't.  You have guests and other users.  If you have IP customers,
then they have guests and other online users.  By accepting spam you allow
your resources (which you offer for cooperative reasons) to be used in a
noncooperative way.  If you have downstream customers you are subjecting
them to the same abuse.

Filtering by domain names doesn't work.  Filtering by email source address
doesn't work.  Complaining, by itself, doesn't work.  Asking to be removed
from the spammer's spam list VERY DEFINITELY doesn't work.

Removing people from the cooperative portion of the Internet works fine.

> This "fight spam" campaign is only serving to reinforce the belief that
> mass marketing via the net is working.  If everyone just ignored the mail,
> the problem would go away.

If those of us who "fight spam" laid back and did nothing, you and every
other online Internet user would be getting ten spams an hour by this time.
It took a legal judgement against Sanford Wallace to get him to stop spamming
all of AOL and Compuserve.  Jeff Slaton finds it hard to get a new internet
connection every time he soils a new nest.  The Green Card Lawyers are out
of business, they made a little money on the book but not from advertising.
"Krazy Kevin" was investigated by the U.S. Postal inspectors and I havn't
seen a magazine scam for a few months now.

I won't stop until it's socially unacceptable.  When 800 phone sex people
move offshore I block entire Pacific islands until they lose even those

The BGP peerage pressures are trending the Internet toward settlements, which
is not a cooperative economic system.  In such a system it will be hard as
nails to get a new ISP started since the people you want to peer with won't
want you as anything but a customer.  However, the one side benefit will be
that spamming will cost as much, or more, than postal system advertising.
I would like to solve the problem with social pressure, but sooner or later
it will be solved by making a new noncooperative economic underpinning.

Here's TODAY's list of spammers:

        # general spam
        204.141.123 masklen 24  interface lo0   reject; # Cybernex
        208.1.117 masklen 24    interface lo0   reject; # Intgrtd Med. Promtns
        208.8.32 masklen 24     interface lo0   reject; # Idea Concepts
        207.76.82 masklen 24    interface lo0   reject; # hardchannel masklen 29 interface lo0 reject; # telysis masklen 32 interface lo0 reject; #
        38.220.191 masklen 24   interface lo0   reject; # quantumcom masklen 32 interface lo0 reject; # shadowgrp (IDCI) masklen 32 interface lo0 reject; # xshadowx (uServe?)
        # cyberpromo spam masklen 32 interface lo0 reject; #
        207.124.161 masklen 24  interface lo0   reject; # NS8, NS9 (IDCI)
        205.199.212 masklen 24  interface lo0   reject; # NS5 (AGIS) masklen 20    interface lo0   reject; # NS10 (Crawford) masklen 32 interface lo0  reject; # NS7 (ACUN)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -