nanog mailing list archives

Re: anti-spam vs network abuse

From: Paul Vixie <vixie () vix com>
Date: 28 Feb 2003 17:56:36 +0000

For the past 15 months, NJABL has reactively tested systems that have
connected to participating SMTP servers to see if those systems are open
relays. ...

We do not consider what NJABL does abuse, ...


Jon,

If "they" are indeed only testing systems who connect to them, it's not
abuse, and I would not have complained.  However, they scanned every
address in every netblock I own, looking for SMTP servers.  That was
abuse, that was illegal in California, and I was shocked that you "allowed"
"them" to behave that way.  Hopefully my inference is correct and "they"
are now scanning only the hosts which connect to participating SMTP servers.

Paul

Current thread:

Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ?, (continued)
- - - Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ? kai (Feb 27)
    - Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ? Will Yardley (Feb 27)
    - Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ? Dave Israel (Feb 27)
    - Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ? Kai Schlichting (Feb 27)
    - Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ? jlewis (Feb 27)
    - Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ? Kai Schlichting (Feb 28)
    - anti-spam vs network abuse jlewis (Feb 27)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Jack Bates (Feb 27)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse David Schwartz (Feb 27)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Roy (Feb 28)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Paul Vixie (Feb 28)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Daniel Senie (Feb 28)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Gary E. Miller (Feb 28)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Andy Dills (Feb 28)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Dan Hollis (Feb 28)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Jack Bates (Feb 28)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse David G. Andersen (Feb 28)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Feb 28)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Andy Dills (Feb 28)
    - Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Len Rose (Feb 28)

(Thread continues...)