while i'm on the subject of filtering, here's today's list of spammers

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

> if you're listed and think you shouldn't be, give me a call (you can't send
> me mail). and yes, these same thieves are also prevented from reaching the
> F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET host, but lack of reachability to one NS doesn't break
> their service.

It's still childish and unfair. And if everyone does this, then sooner or
later someone's going to get blocked because they said something nasty
about the root server operator's mother or something equally trite. I
don't want to cry "free speech" but it will eventually become that kind of
issue.

The people who have signed up to receive my blackhole feed in real time all
pretty much trust me to restrict my additions to things which violate the
cooperative economics underlying the 'net. I take it that you weren't at the
San Francisco NANOG so you didn't get to hear my talk on this subject.

I will not have network resources I pay for, used to spam me, or to spam
others. I have the right of use and/or disposal of my own property. People
who spam are committing "theft of service" and my Ip reachability matrix is
better off without such people in it.

I also fail to see how blocking them from one server restricts spammers in
any way. Explain that one to me.

It's not one server. It's all of the folks who have signed up to receive my
real time BGP4 feed. There are two continentwide ISPs so far, hopefully with
more to come. (There are also smaller folks who by and large just want the
feed to protect their own servers rather than their transit customers, but
that's fine by me.)

> why in the world are we discussing this on NANOG?

I've no idea. Perhaps you should have sent it to the individuals who are
blocked instead (esp. considering most of them probably don't subscribe),
or just not at all.

I can't reach them directly, relaying through the NANOG listserv is the best
way to let folks know that they're in the black hole. Three people removed
their spammer customers and asked me to remove them from the list last time
I published it, so my real plan -- that of provider education -- is working.

                    I don't really care about spam domains, unless they
spam me - in which case I procmail them into oblivion and that's that.

No, it isn't. You have guests and other users. If you have IP customers,
then they have guests and other online users. By accepting spam you allow
your resources (which you offer for cooperative reasons) to be used in a
noncooperative way. If you have downstream customers you are subjecting
them to the same abuse.

Filtering by domain names doesn't work. Filtering by email source address
doesn't work. Complaining, by itself, doesn't work. Asking to be removed
from the spammer's spam list VERY DEFINITELY doesn't work.

Removing people from the cooperative portion of the Internet works fine.

This "fight spam" campaign is only serving to reinforce the belief that
mass marketing via the net is working. If everyone just ignored the mail,
the problem would go away.

If those of us who "fight spam" laid back and did nothing, you and every
other online Internet user would be getting ten spams an hour by this time.
It took a legal judgement against Sanford Wallace to get him to stop spamming
all of AOL and Compuserve. Jeff Slaton finds it hard to get a new internet
connection every time he soils a new nest. The Green Card Lawyers are out
of business, they made a little money on the book but not from advertising.
"Krazy Kevin" was investigated by the U.S. Postal inspectors and I havn't
seen a magazine scam for a few months now.

I won't stop until it's socially unacceptable. When 800 phone sex people
move offshore I block entire Pacific islands until they lose even those
connections.

The BGP peerage pressures are trending the Internet toward settlements, which
is not a cooperative economic system. In such a system it will be hard as
nails to get a new ISP started since the people you want to peer with won't
want you as anything but a customer. However, the one side benefit will be
that spamming will cost as much, or more, than postal system advertising.
I would like to solve the problem with social pressure, but sooner or later
it will be solved by making a new noncooperative economic underpinning.

Here's TODAY's list of spammers:

        # general spam
        204.141.123 masklen 24 interface lo0 reject; # Cybernex
        208.1.117 masklen 24 interface lo0 reject; # Intgrtd Med. Promtns
        208.8.32 masklen 24 interface lo0 reject; # Idea Concepts
        207.76.82 masklen 24 interface lo0 reject; # hardchannel
        206.222.107.192 masklen 29 interface lo0 reject; # telysis
        207.217.56.116 masklen 32 interface lo0 reject; # mailloop.com
        38.220.191 masklen 24 interface lo0 reject; # quantumcom
        205.136.220.60 masklen 32 interface lo0 reject; # shadowgrp (IDCI)
        204.183.199.231 masklen 32 interface lo0 reject; # xshadowx (uServe?)
        # cyberpromo spam
        207.120.161.73 masklen 32 interface lo0 reject; # www.cpmall.com
        207.124.161 masklen 24 interface lo0 reject; # NS8, NS9 (IDCI)
        205.199.212 masklen 24 interface lo0 reject; # NS5 (AGIS)
        208.5.0.0 masklen 20 interface lo0 reject; # NS10 (Crawford)
        206.27.86.210 masklen 32 interface lo0 reject; # NS7 (ACUN)

2

The people who have signed up to receive my blackhole feed in real time all
pretty much trust me to restrict my additions to things which violate the
cooperative economics underlying the 'net. I take it that you weren't at the
San Francisco NANOG so you didn't get to hear my talk on this subject.

I trust you as well, Paul. You've been doing this for too long to be some
crazy conspiracist with a hidden agenda. I don't doubt that every one of
these sites deserves this treatment. But you are presuming to exert
control over a public resource. I don't care if you pay for it, you
provide it to the public for public consumption and IMO you should not
practice this sort of thing. If you don't like this, no one's making you
personally provide for the root server - let someone else do it.

Regardless, let people decide for themselves who they want and don't want
to talk to. Circulating a list of known spammers is one thing - it's
still up to me to block them. Assuming you have the right to block
someone for me is something I'm opposed to, in principle at least. The
temptation to block someone for "other" reasons (political, for instance)
is just too much; if it's not you, then someone else will do it.

I will not have network resources I pay for, used to spam me, or to spam
others. I have the right of use and/or disposal of my own property. People
who spam are committing "theft of service" and my Ip reachability matrix is
better off without such people in it.

What you pay for is your business. I could care less if you block
everything. What you provide to the public is something else entirely.

No, it isn't. You have guests and other users. If you have IP customers,
then they have guests and other online users. By accepting spam you allow
your resources (which you offer for cooperative reasons) to be used in a
noncooperative way. If you have downstream customers you are subjecting
them to the same abuse.

We offer our customers Internet access, and when they complain about
spammers we do something about it. However, what we do affects only our
network and our customers. It does not affect the world as a whole?

Removing people from the cooperative portion of the Internet works fine.

They'll come on from somewhere else. You can't block everyone, and
someone will always be willing to make a buck providing access to these
people.

I won't stop until it's socially unacceptable. When 800 phone sex people
move offshore I block entire Pacific islands until they lose even those
connections.

Again, you can't block everyone. Why you feel it necessary to impose your
social mores on the net as a whole is beyond me.

shag

Judd Bourgeois PGP key ID 0xEDC21CA1
shagboy@world.std.com 25DDE4AF C5AFEF51 6905DC77 360F0387
To all my friends - It's not the end
The earth has not swallowed me yet - 311, "Freak Out"