North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Spam. Again.. -- and blocking net blocks?
I'm not taking sides here, but do want to mention some other aspects: Unnamed Administration sources reported that Scott Silzer said: > > > I could understand if an ISP was allowing spam from a portion of > there (sic) network. But in this case the only thing that the ISP did is > host a website, the SPAM was sent from from a third party's network. > The ISP did terminate the customer but in the meantime the entire > NSP's network has been blacklisted, for a rouge webhosting account > does sound a bit harsh. Excuse me, the ONLY thing? I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up. General "Buck" Turgidson Since 90% of the spam I get is relay-raped off of some .kr/cn site, It'd say the gonads^H^Hweb address is exactly the correct target. It's the asset in place. What's missing in your report is timeframes. How long was the spamsite up? When did the first report hit .sightings? Were there responses from [email protected], [email protected] etc? For the record, my view on SPEWS is this.... 0) I'm less than comfortable with it but... 1) It would not exist if there was not a demand for it; after all, it's powerless if no mail host looks at it. 2) The fact there is so much heat over it is proving its impact. 3) Past, more moderate approaches proved very ineffective, for reasons of policy or getting sued into silence. 4) Like it or not, it IS waking up large carriers who have previously turned a blind eye. 5) No one has offered a better solution so far. As Perot said - "I'm all ears.." -- A host is a host from coast to [email protected] & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433