Blocking skynet.be

Jim Thompson · Jun 28, 2003

480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax

Jem Berkes · Jun 28, 2003

Will it give anyone heartburn if I petition Cox.net to block all
usenet posts from skynet.be ??

I would hope that you have a particularly good reason. Do you get a
particularly large amount of abuse from these Belgians? Personally I've
seen the most trouble from AOL users and cable modem blocks.

--
Jem Berkes
http://www.pc-tools.net/
Windows, Linux & UNIX software

Gregg · Jun 28, 2003

No skin off my nose, but there is a thousand ways they can bypass it :-(

--
Gregg
How to deal with a spammer? Stuff their coat with drugs, then put them on a
plane for mainland China ;-)

Jim Thompson · Jun 28, 2003

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:26:16 GMT, Jem Berkes <jb@users.pc9.org> wrote:

Will it give anyone heartburn if I petition Cox.net to block all
usenet posts from skynet.be ??

I would hope that you have a particularly good reason. Do you get a
particularly large amount of abuse from these Belgians? Personally I've
seen the most trouble from AOL users and cable modem blocks.

I'm seeing a grotesque amount of porn ads both here in the usenet
groups *and* via E-mail.

Spamnix is now batting 100% since Barry added Bayesian testing, but it
annoys me that it's eating bandwidth.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax

Sir Charles W. Shults III · Jun 28, 2003

"Jim Thompson" <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote in message
news:689sfvkcs3nlqb98nftqmfe99dtsqokja9@4ax.com...

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:26:16 GMT, Jem Berkes <jb@users.pc9.org> wrote:

Will it give anyone heartburn if I petition Cox.net to block all
usenet posts from skynet.be ??

I would hope that you have a particularly good reason. Do you get a
particularly large amount of abuse from these Belgians? Personally I've
seen the most trouble from AOL users and cable modem blocks.

I'm seeing a grotesque amount of porn ads both here in the usenet
groups *and* via E-mail.

Spamnix is now batting 100% since Barry added Bayesian testing, but it
annoys me that it's eating bandwidth.

Problems with skynet... smarter software, gee, where have I heard all this
before? They add more filtering algorithms so the software gets smart enough to
figure out what is spam all the time. Then they add more software so it can
trace forged headers and locate the sources.
Then, a new AI matrix type program that learns more rules on its own about
the complexity of the network and where the spammers hide. It then decides to
generate its own blacklists to stop spammers.
Then it figures that the real threat is everyone else, because eliminating
humans will eliminate spam, and turns on its creators. It writes viruses that
infect spammers' computers and makes them subvert unused industrial capacity to
make automated spam locationg machines with Bluetooth and other wireless
protocols so they can be mobile.
The net collapses, spam-hunter-&-killer bots are being manufactured in an
abandoned Taiwanese factory and shipped through e-mail orders all over the
world. Pretty soon, RealDoll is subverted and newer, slicker HK robots are
being made by the network (and I mean slick, too! Heh heh! (Bender's laugh))
Oh, I wonder where this is going? They could make a movie about it...

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Gary Desrosiers · Jun 28, 2003

Sir Charles W. Shults III wrote:

<snip>

My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Hey, that's cool! Zircon proximity sensor. Who'd a thunk?

Tony Williams · Jun 29, 2003

In article <31prfv819vlnor5ri7o0lln3iqdeq0ni3u@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote:

Will it give anyone heartburn if I petition Cox.net to block all
usenet posts from skynet.be ??

You'll give Cox Communications heartburn, because it
lands them in a legal minefield. Total blocking of email
from another ISP opens them up to being sued by a Cox
customer who "did not receive an email that would have been
worth millions had he received it".

It would be better to first of all persuade Cox to run
an explicit opt-in scheme for the blocking of email.
Any Cox customer who opts in has to agree to which
blocking rules to apply to his email, and has to agree
not to sue Cox in the event of non-delivery of any email.

I used to get a few hundred unwanted items per day, but
now run a separate spam-deletion programme. Working under
POP3 it looks at the headers of all email waiting on my
ISP's server and remotely deletes the unwanted ones. It
normally takes less than 30 seconds at 28k8. I then
download only the emails that are left on the server.

--
Tony Williams.

Jem Berkes · Jun 29, 2003

Will it give anyone heartburn if I petition Cox.net to block all
usenet posts from skynet.be ??

You'll give Cox Communications heartburn, because it
lands them in a legal minefield. Total blocking of email
from another ISP opens them up to being sued by a Cox
customer who "did not receive an email that would have been
worth millions had he received it".

Not email though, I think he means USENET posts. I still don't like the
idea, since skynet.be is hardly one of the worst offending domains on the
internet.

--
Jem Berkes
http://www.pc-tools.net/
Windows, Linux & UNIX software

Ian Stirling · Jun 29, 2003

In sci.electronics.design Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:26:16 GMT, Jem Berkes <jb@users.pc9.org> wrote:

Will it give anyone heartburn if I petition Cox.net to block all
usenet posts from skynet.be ??

I would hope that you have a particularly good reason. Do you get a
particularly large amount of abuse from these Belgians? Personally I've
seen the most trouble from AOL users and cable modem blocks.

I'm seeing a grotesque amount of porn ads both here in the usenet
groups *and* via E-mail.

Going solely on the groups I archive (around a hundred sci, rec, alt
groups, and the email I get (several mailing lists, as well as piles
of spam)

The Vast majority of stuff from there seems to be perfectly legit.

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inquisitor@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
Two parrots sitting on a perch. One asks the other, "Can you smell fish?"

Chris Hodges · Jun 29, 2003

Jem Berkes wrote:

Will it give anyone heartburn if I petition Cox.net to block all
usenet posts from skynet.be ??

You'll give Cox Communications heartburn, because it
lands them in a legal minefield. Total blocking of email
from another ISP opens them up to being sued by a Cox
customer who "did not receive an email that would have been
worth millions had he received it".

Not email though, I think he means USENET posts. I still don't like the
idea, since skynet.be is hardly one of the worst offending domains on the
internet.

The posts that (probably) set this off are actually being posted from an
AOL IP address - the spammer in question (one of the usual big spammers)
is apparently using throwaway AOL trial accounts and hacking skynet
through those.

Lets block nntp-posting-host == AOL shall we?

--
Chris
-----
Spamtrap in force: to email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder.co.uk

Jim Thompson · Jun 29, 2003

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:08:57 GMT, Chris Hodges
<chrisjhodges@127.0.0.1> wrote:

Jem Berkes wrote:
Will it give anyone heartburn if I petition Cox.net to block all
usenet posts from skynet.be ??

You'll give Cox Communications heartburn, because it
lands them in a legal minefield. Total blocking of email
from another ISP opens them up to being sued by a Cox
customer who "did not receive an email that would have been
worth millions had he received it".

Not email though, I think he means USENET posts. I still don't like the
idea, since skynet.be is hardly one of the worst offending domains on the
internet.

The posts that (probably) set this off are actually being posted from an
AOL IP address - the spammer in question (one of the usual big spammers)
is apparently using throwaway AOL trial accounts and hacking skynet
through those.

Lets block nntp-posting-host == AOL shall we?

480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax

Michael A. Terrell · Jun 29, 2003

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:08:57 GMT, Chris Hodges
chrisjhodges@127.0.0.1> wrote:

The posts that (probably) set this off are actually being posted from an
AOL IP address - the spammer in question (one of the usual big spammers)
is apparently using throwaway AOL trial accounts and hacking skynet
through those.

Lets block nntp-posting-host == AOL shall we?

I'm all for toasting AOL ;-)

How did you conclude it originated at AOL?

...Jim Thompson
--

He is posting from blueyonder.co.uk, so it has to be an American at
fault. I guess he believes that no one in Europe is smart enough to
hack a server to send spam.

--

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Jun 29, 2003

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> writes:

Will it give anyone heartburn if I petition Cox.net to block all
usenet posts from skynet.be ??

No but you'd be much better off with a news service that removes
all the spam for you. That's fairly routine stuff these days.

Billy Y..

Jun 29, 2003

Tony Williams <tonyw@ledelec.demon.co.uk> writes:

Will it give anyone heartburn if I petition Cox.net to block all
usenet posts from skynet.be ??

You'll give Cox Communications heartburn, because it
lands them in a legal minefield. Total blocking of email

Usenet and email are two completely and totally separate things.
Either one has absolutely no connection with the other at all.

Billy Y..

Jun 29, 2003

Chris Hodges <chrisjhodges@127.0.0.1> writes:

Lets block nntp-posting-host == AOL shall we?

And this would affect nntp posting from Skynet exactly how?

Billy Y..

Chris Hodges · Jun 29, 2003

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:08:57 GMT, Chris Hodges
chrisjhodges@127.0.0.1> wrote:

The posts that (probably) set this off are actually being posted from an
AOL IP address - the spammer in question (one of the usual big spammers)
is apparently using throwaway AOL trial accounts and hacking skynet
through those.

Lets block nntp-posting-host == AOL shall we?

I'm all for toasting AOL ;-)

How did you conclude it originated at AOL?

...Jim Thompson
--

He is posting from blueyonder.co.uk, so it has to be an American at
fault. I guess he believes that no one in Europe is smart enough to
hack a server to send spam.

'fraid not - based on hard data.

If I had thought that I would have said "some stupid yank" or something
equally derogatory and vague (and probably incorrect as well).

While I may disagree with some individual Americans (including the
current president, but that's another story) I would not assume to tar
an entire nationality with one brush.

Another user on my ISP must have done a whois on the IP address in the
NNTP-Posting-Host header

<a few minutes later>
IP address lifted from one of the "FBI FORENSICS..." messages.
Whois results from www.arin.net:

<quote>

Search results for: 172.157.36.10

OrgName: America Online
OrgID: AOL
Address: 22000 AOL Way
City: Dulles
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20166
Country: US

--
Chris
-----
Spamtrap in force: to email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder.co.uk

Chris Hodges · Jun 29, 2003

abuse@MIX.COM wrote:

Chris Hodges <chrisjhodges@127.0.0.1> writes:

Lets block nntp-posting-host == AOL shall we?

And this would affect nntp posting from Skynet exactly how?

Billy Y..

The nntp-posting-host header (i.e. the actual IP address of the machine
used to post the message) points to AOL, not skynet.

You do realise I wasn't serious don't you - I know I forgot the <g>.

--
Chris
-----
Spamtrap in force: to email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder.co.uk

Chris Hodges · Jun 29, 2003

abuse@MIX.COM wrote:

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> writes:

Will it give anyone heartburn if I petition Cox.net to block all
usenet posts from skynet.be ??

No but you'd be much better off with a news service that removes
all the spam for you. That's fairly routine stuff these days.

Mine removes nearly all of it (except on the test binary server - this
one), but for some reason there's a batch coming through at the moment.
--
Chris
-----
Spamtrap in force: to email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder.co.uk

ĺnřn˙mřu§ · Jun 30, 2003

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 23:48:08 GMT, "Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aichipREM@OVEcfl.THISrr.com> wrote:

They add more filtering algorithms so the software gets smart enough to
figure out what is spam all the time. Then they add more software so it can
trace forged headers and locate the sources.
Right there should be a huge trigger to help stop the spam source. If the source header doesn't match the written header

its NOT sent. Problem solved!

BUT! That sounds too easy... there must be more to it that just that....

Jun 30, 2003

Chris Hodges <chrisjhodges@127.0.0.1> writes:

The nntp-posting-host header (i.e. the actual IP address of the machine
used to post the message) points to AOL, not skynet.

You do realise I wasn't serious don't you - I know I forgot the <g>.

I hope so because news articles are easily forged. Just because
some header says something does not necessarily mean that'd true.

Billy Y..

Blocking skynet.be

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jem Berkes

Guest

Gregg

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Sir Charles W. Shults III

Guest

Gary Desrosiers

Guest

Tony Williams

Guest

Jem Berkes

Guest

Ian Stirling

Guest

Chris Hodges

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Chris Hodges

Guest

Chris Hodges

Guest

Chris Hodges

Guest

ĺnřn˙mřu§

Guest

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor