North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: verio arrogance

  • From: Phil Rosenthal
  • Date: Thu Jul 18 21:39:34 2002

How is it arrogant?
I read that as: a customer set up an exploitable FormMail.  Verio
received notice about it. Verio removed the FormMail in question. Verio
asked to be removed since they corrected the problem. Verio was ignored.

Verio may have some problems with not terminating spammers, and I
believe this to be the truth -- I buy from verio, and Don't spam, and
whenever one of my clients spam, they get terminated for it.  I receive
plenty of spam from verio ips, and no matter how much I complain, it
never gets terminated.  This is probably a scenario of asking sales rep
"If I want to spam, but I pay more per meg -- Is this OK?"  and getting
a positive answer.

That is why the NANAE people don't like verio.  But, nonetheless, I
don't think that putting verio's mailserver on a formmail list is
accomplishing anything good, since they fixed THAT problem...

--Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Kai Schlichting
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Kai Schlichting
Subject: Re: verio arrogance



How's THIS for Verio arrogance, going to a whole new level:

http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/verio-demand.ps

Details were on the SPAM-L list Wed, 17 Jul 2002  15:51:05 EDT: Verio
threatens to sue Ron Guilmette over the IP 208.55.91.59 appearing on his
FormMail.pl open-proxy/formmail server DNSBL.

And given the ever-increasing number of spammers now hopping onto Verio
tells me that Verio must be well down the spiral of death (spammers seem
to be attracted by NSP's going chapter 7/11, or who are getting close),
or else the dozen-or-so automated messages going to [email protected]
every week complaining about connections (real or attempted) to hosts
under my control, and originating from their spamming customers would
have shown any results over time.

I don't need connectivity to 208.55.0.0/16. I really don't, and I have
not the slightest tolerance for litigious, small-minded,
panic-lawyer-dialling scum like this.

/etc/mail$ grep 208.55 access.local
208.55                  550 Access for FormMail spam and litigious scum
denied - XXXX Verio in their XXXXXXXX XXX - we block more than just
208.55.91.59 - Spammers must die - see
http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/verio-demand.ps
/etc/mail$

PS: I also have zero tolerance for Nadine-type spam-generating,
"single-opt-in",
  "87% permission-based" emailers nowadays: 2 bounces or a single mail
to a
   never-existing account, and all your /24's are off into gated.conf as
a
   next-hop route to 127.0.0.1. And no, they won't get around that by
advertising
   /25's.

Good-bye route-prefix-filtering wars, and welcome to the war on spam,
where Null0'd /28's for filtering 'undesirables' just doesn't cut it any
more. Casualties like 10-15 bystanding rackspace.com customers with a
"Nadine- type" mailer in neighboring IP space be damned: "move your
servers into a different slum, cause da landlord's running down 'da
neighborhood".

--
"Just say No" to Spam                                     Kai
Schlichting
New York, Palo Alto, You name it             Sophisticated Technical
Peon
Kai's SpamShield <tm> is FREE!
http://www.SpamShield.org
|                                                                       
| |
LeasedLines-FrameRelay-IPLs-ISDN-PPP-Cisco-Consulting-VoiceFax-Data-Muxe
s
WorldWideWebAnything-Intranets-NetAdmin-UnixAdmin-Security-ReallyHardMat
h