RE: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse

["Roy" <garlic () garlic com>]

1700+ attempts from one IP address to send mail today via one of my servers.

-----Original Message-----
From: nicole () xwin nmhtech com [mailto:nicole () xwin nmhtech com]On Behalf
Of Nicole
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:25 PM
To: nanog () merit edu
Cc: Mark Turpin; Roy
Subject: RE: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse




 Well at least they are somewhat DNS responsible in that they seperate their
user IP space well. SO that it can be blocked. the really annoying ISPS's
use
stupid things like  DSL1234.isp.com  And such.

 Of course doing this does block those 1 in 100 people runing a server on
their
DSL line and not requesting a reverse DNS change.

la.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL
va.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL
mn.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL
ga.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL
ct.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL
ma.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL
ca.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL
wi.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL
al.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL
sc.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL
tx.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL
nc.charter.com                  550 NO Mail Accepted From DSL



 Nicole




On 17-Feb-04 Unnamed Administration sources reported Roy said :
> Well they accept mail at abuse () charter com but they certainly don't do
> anything about it.  I have sent numerous complaints to that address with
> absolutely nothing happening to fix the problem.  The address is a black
> hole.
>
> Roy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> Mark Turpin
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 9:56 AM
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Open, anonymous services and dealing with abuse
>
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Daniel Reed wrote:
>
> > paid regularly, or their budgets are kept low, etc.  Many will have RFC
> 2142
> > contacts, but appear to discard incoming mail. Some, such as Charter
> > Communications, do not even have these mandatory addresses (mail is not
> > accepted for <abuse () charter com>).
>
> while they do not conform to the RFC, they receive accept mail at/for
> abuse () chartercom com
>
> [This would be the domain w/o outsourced MX...]
>
> > And on the other hand, it is the CDC that would perform an outbreak
> > isolation, not the restaurant staff.
>
> You're talking about a concerted effort.  So far, I haven't seen the
> levels of cooperation between providers that is required.  I'm all for
> everyone holding hands and squashing out issues.  But until you get
> past the isolationist mindset (you must be sick of me saying that by
> now) good luck...
>
> I think we're both in agreement that until * starts saying "If I
> don't stop this today, it will hurt me tomorrow", that the
> cooperation required to address and stop these issues will be nil.
>
> -mark


--
                     |\ __ /|   (`\
                     | o_o  |__  ) )
                    //      \\
  -  nmh () daemontech com  -  Powered by FreeBSD  -
------------------------------------------------------
 " Daemons" will now be known as "spiritual guides"
         -Politically Correct UNIX Page

 Great places...
 http://www.nonsenseband.com -  My Band

 http://www.picturetrail.com -  Sysadmin

 http://www.mediatechnique.com - Sysadmin2