North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network

  • From: Christopher L. Morrow
  • Date: Thu Jun 24 03:05:50 2004

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote:

>
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 03:05:41 +0000 (GMT), Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >Sure, customer of a customer we got emailtools.com kicked from their
> >original 'home' now they've moved off (probably several times since 2000)
> >to another customer. This happens to every ISP, each time they appear we
> >start the process to disconnect them.
>
> This is too flagrant to let pass without comment.
>
> This "endless loop" situation does NOT happen to every ISP, only to those who
> have not emplaced procedures to prevent serial signups of serial
> abusers.  This is

Sorry, you mistook my statement, or I mis-spoke it such that you would
misunderstand it :( So, the point I was trying to make I'll try again with
an example: (situtation not made up, parties made up)

1) spammer#12 signs up as a webhosting customer of Exodus who is a
customer of As701
2) 701 gets complaints, notifies good customer Exodus who terms the
spammer's website/box/blah
3) spammer#12 signs up with next 50$/month hosting site Abovenet off 1239
4) 1239 gets complaints notifies the good customer abovenet who terms the
customer.
.
.
.
12) spammer#12 signs up with webhosting group rackspace who is a 701
customer
13) return to step 2

This process happens repeatedly, spammers know they can get about a month
of time (or more, depending on upstreams and hosting providers in
question) of life, either way it's just 50 bucks.... At all times, they
are not customers of 1239, 701, whomever... they are a customer of a
customer. So, 701 or 1239 never know who the downstream is, in the
particular case of emailtools.com this is the case... Or, that's what
seems to have happened since they were a customer of some NYC based
customer 4 years ago, and are now a customer of some TPA based customer
now.

> trivially easy to do and your firm's failure to do so and to enforce
> this rule on your
> contracting parties definitively proves your management's decision to
> profit from
> spam rather than to stop spam.
>

I'd also point out someting that any provider will tell you: "Spammers
never pay their bills." This is, in fact (for you nanae watchers), the
reason that most of them get canceled by us FASTER... Sadly, non-payment
is often a quicker and easier method to term a customer than 'abuse', less
checks since there is no 'percieved revenue' :(

-Chris