![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () vix com>
Date: 01 Mar 2003 16:58:22 +0000
jlewis () lewis org writes:
When I hooked up my first server on the internet back in 1993, I was kind of shocked that some far away stranger was trying to log into my POP3 server. Unwanted connections have been a fact of life on the internet probably since its beginning.
here's a sample of current SMTP activity in unused parts of ISC's netblocks:
[211.59.151.211] -> [204.152.191.97] hanmir.com <2247kocci1 () hanmir com> (136) <coscard02 () hanmail net> -- Message-ID: <90400-22003242705510905 () hanmir com> X-EM-Version: 6, 0, 0, 4 X-EM-Registration: #0010630410721500AB30 Reply-To: kocci1 () hanmir com From: "coscard01" <2247kocci1 () hanmir com> To: coscard02 () hanmail net Subject: 204.152.191.97 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:55:10 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=KS_C_5601-1987 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [211.59.151.211] -> [204.152.191.98] hanmir.com <2249kocci1 () hanmir com> (136) <coscard02 () hanmail net> -- Message-ID: <226480-2200324270551115 () hanmir com> X-EM-Version: 6, 0, 0, 4 X-EM-Registration: #0010630410721500AB30 Reply-To: kocci1 () hanmir com From: "coscard01" <2249kocci1 () hanmir com> To: coscard02 () hanmail net Subject: 204.152.191.98 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:55:11 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=KS_C_5601-1987 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [211.59.151.211] -> [204.152.191.99] hanmir.com <2249kocci1 () hanmir com> (136) <coscard02 () hanmail net> -- Message-ID: <67290-22003242705511155 () hanmir com> X-EM-Version: 6, 0, 0, 4 X-EM-Registration: #0010630410721500AB30 Reply-To: kocci1 () hanmir com From: "coscard01" <2249kocci1 () hanmir com> To: coscard02 () hanmail net Subject: 204.152.191.99 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:55:11 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=KS_C_5601-1987 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
here's the "sort | uniq -c | sort -nr" output from the last two weeks:
757266 210.218.176.100 126472 210.105.112.100 2032 211.59.151.211 1261 218.49.187.136 780 219.248.155.57 508 211.49.94.75 508 211.49.94.211 508 211.49.94.118 508 211.194.117.174 506 218.49.187.184 378 211.49.94.238 252 218.49.187.176 221 61.75.215.47 214 61.61.28.159 118 61.254.207.114 6 62.79.90.71 4 217.226.92.40 3 80.130.52.180 3 217.226.91.5 2 80.130.54.82 2 217.226.91.68 2 217.226.82.168 1 62.79.110.122 1 217.226.85.181 1 217.226.83.80
i don't think this is, ever was, or will be allowed to be, a fact of my life. -- Paul Vixie
Current thread:
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse jlewis (Feb 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse jlewis (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse up (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Paul Vixie (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Hank Nussbacher (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Michael Lamoureux (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse jlewis (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Mar 01)
- Message not available
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Andy Dills (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Michael Lamoureux (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Mar 03)