|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?
I do agree here that using fake addressing and so on is really bad on many levels. I know on one of the networks I was involved in recently we had a customer who was a spammer and I pulled his services very quickly, some might even say to quickly. I also realize that even though I personally don't find it to bad to to deal with others don't agree so like I stated my professional policy differs from what I do personally. On Fri, 3 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote: > On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote: > > > deal with spam is. Honestly sure I get it like everyone else, in some > > of my accounts more than others but I also get a real truckload in my > > snailmail box. Just as with all the pottery barn catalogs <no offense > > to pottery barn I guess>:) I have a delete key just like my trash can. > > I know at one time the argument was made, and quite correctly that > > people were paying to receive this service and these messages cost them > > money. Today with flat rate access and many people not paying on a per > > packet basis it seems to me that the responsibility lies with the end > > user to filter properly and or dress that delete key. I always shut > > down customers who spam and disrupt service simply because I don't want > > the backlash or want specific ips blocked but in a way I don't feel its > > right that the carriers do the filtering it seems tome up to the end > > user. > > Let me put this into real world terms. > > I run a mail server (among other things) with about 4000 mailboxes, and > about 40,000 messages a day. > > over 85% of all mail on average is marked as spam by spamassasin on this > mail server. > > I, late last year, had to upgrade it to a multiprocessor box with > gigabytes of memory, striped raid 0+1, etc. etc. etc. to handle the load. > > I could have used a mail server only 15% of the size of this one. Or > better put, I could have used a 300mhz pentium III box with low-end IDE > drives and a modest amount (256MB) of memory instead of the Dual PRocessor > 6-SCSI 2GB ram thing we are running now. > > Add to that the 8-10 hours a week we spend cleaning up messes related to > spammers who decide that sending 50,000+ messages as fast as they can to > us is a good thing. For instance, on thursday of last week, we took > almost 5000 messages in about a hour from one spammer in particular. The > mail server *can't* handle this load so it basically was a Denial of > Service attack. > > Right now there are 5000 messages in our mail queue which are spam bounces > which aren't being accepted by the spammer's mail server. > > I could go on and on and on and on. > > I might be more inclined to tolerate the spammers if they weren't bad net > citizens. They forge their email addressses so they can't receive > bounces. They don't have any consideration about the load they are > placing on the remote mail server (I've seen 40 streams open at once to my > mail server from the same class C - all injecting mail as fast as > possible). And on and on and on. > > - Forrest W. Christian ([email protected]) AC7DE > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Innovation Machine Ltd. P.O. Box 5749 > http://www.imach.com/ Helena, MT 59604 > Home of PacketFlux Technogies and BackupDNS.com (406)-442-6648 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Protect your personal freedoms - visit http://www.lp.org/ >
|