nanog mailing list archives
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
From: Rob Thomas <robt () cymru com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 21:20:41 -0600 (CST)
Hi, NANOGers. ] and conversely, all attacks are not preceded by scanning. Very true. Most of the attack activity I monitor does not include scanning activity or any other reconnaissance. However, those who attack often enjoy monitoring their progress. This can be an interesting (albeit difficult) way to trace back the attack to the sources. Thanks, Rob. -- Rob Thomas http://www.cymru.com ASSERT(coffee != empty);
Current thread:
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Len Rose (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Randy Bush (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Len Rose (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Rob Thomas (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse E.B. Dreger (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Roy (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Paul Vixie (Feb 28)