North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Attn MCI/UUNet - Massive abuse from your network
At 12:28 PM 6/21/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I am quite sure that the ethics department does not deal with spam complaints. My complaint is that your stated policy is clearly not being followed. MCI is currently the Number 1 spam source on many lists- certainly, your overall size skews that figure somewhat, but the listings I see (on the SBL anyway, I do not have the many hours needed to read all the documentation SPEWS has to offer) have reports that are at least 6 months old and are still alive...the ethics office doesn't need to see your complaints, they don't really deal with these anyway.
As an example, I see a posting that says emailtools.com was alive on 126.96.36.199 in 2000. They aren't there any more... But now:
[me@host]$ telnet mail.emailtools.com 25
Connected to mail.emailtools.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mail.emailtools.com ESMTP Merak 5.1.5; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:55:20 -0400
221 2.0.0 mail.emailtools.com closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
[me@host]$ whois `dnsip mail.emailtools.com`
UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNET65 (NET-65-192-0-0-1)
188.8.131.52 - 184.108.40.206
MTI SOFTWARE UU-65-210-168-32-D9 (NET-65-210-168-32-1)
220.127.116.11 - 18.104.22.168
I can furnish as many examples as needed of cases where UUNet has demonstrably ignored complaints. Alternately, you could go ask any major anti-spam community(NANAE for example) or entity (SpamCop, etc) how they feel your abuse@ response has been. If this sounds like a pain, I will gladly collect such stories and send them to whoever there can effect changes in these policies.
Allow me to rephrase- I wanted it to be read and hoped someone would act on complaints. I have no doubt MCI is serious about stopping DDOS and other abusive traffic of that ilk- when it comes to proxy hijacking and spamming, though, abuse@ turns a blind eye. What other conclusion can I draw from the 200ish SBL entries under MCI's name? Why else would emailtools.com(for example) still be around despite their wholesale raping of misconfigured proxies?On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote: > At 11:42 AM 6/21/2004, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > >curious, why did you not send this to the abuse@ alias? > > I wanted it to get read. messages to abuse@ do infact get read...
All I want is a couple of straight-up answers. Why do complaints to uunet go unanswered and the abusers remain connected if, in fact, the complaints are read? Why has MCI gone from 111 SBL listings as of January 1 to 190 as of today? To whom does the anti-spam community turn when it becomes obvious a tier-1 provider is ignoring complaints?
If I am a kook and an idiot for wanting a cleaner internet, well then I guess I am a kook and an idiot.
Ben Browning <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The River Internet Access Co.
WA Operations Manager