|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in .com/.net
At 10:05 AM 7/23/2004, Christian Kuhtz wrote: Let's just be clear that not all sites mentioned in spam are profiting at all. Spammers mention sites unrelated to what they're advertising to:On 7/23/04 5:29 AM, "Richard Cox" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:27:37 -1000 Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > > | all they need to do is register foo.bar with delegation to their > | dns servers, and change a third level domain name at will. > > Er, no. They have of course tried that already! > > By registering foo.bar with delegation to THEIR dns servers gives full > identification of THEIR dns servers, and the host or upstream of those > servers can (and often does) start invoking their acceptable use policy. > If not, then all the considerations that Paul V. recently cited about > neighbours who allow bad things on their network, start to kick in. > > The scenario I have outlined - now well established, and the mechanism > understood - allows the malfeasants to operate on the 'net with zero > traceability of their identity or location, based on everything they do > being able to be done through zombied Windows PCs or open(ed) proxies. The distribution of spam is only half of the economy at work here. Spam doesn't occur in a vacuum. The other half is the "site(s)" profiting from the spam. 1) throw off blocklists which attempt to build lists of sites mentioned in spam. 2) purposely hurt the reputation of sites by getting blocklists to mention those sites 3) and possibly cause flash traffic loads to sites that would otherwise not get high loads. Sites mentioned without permission common. Be clear with any attempt to go after sites "profiting" from spam to explain how you will only affect those who are really profiting and have given their permission.
|