|
Home > Archive > Email Abuse and Spam > March 2004 > [Media] UUNet tops spammer-hosting super league
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
[Media] UUNet tops spammer-hosting super league
|
|
| Chris Uren 2004-03-01, 3:37 pm |
| As if we didn't know already. Be interesting to read their response to
this, or any of the others listed.
http://theregister.com/content/55/35937.html
UUNet tops spammer-hosting super league
By Lucy Sherriff
Posted: 01/03/2004 at 15:49 GMT
UUNet hosts more spammers than any other ISP. It has 151 listings on
the Spammers Block List (SBL), including 34 known spam gangs with
ROKSO records, according to the anti-spam organisation Spamhaus'
records for February 2004.
The second worst offender, Chinanet-QD, has 82 entries on the SBL. It
hosts Alan Ralsky, listed as the single worst spammer on the ROKSO
list.
Banning unsolicited commercial email is a simple matter, Spamhaus
says. it has examples of well written anti-spam rules for ISPs wanting
to toughen their stance. Finding the will to enforce these rules is
another thing.
In its acceptable use policy, UUNet states: "It is explicitly
prohibited to send unsolicited bulk mail messages (junk mail or spam)
of any kind (commercial advertising, political tracts, announcements),
etc."
Abovenet, too, has a clear and prominent anti-spam policy - and is
number four on the worst-spam ISP list. It host one of the biggest
villains: Scott Richter/Wholesale Bandwidth, who made number four on
the invividual offender list. ®
The top 10 is:
uu.net
chinanet-gd
kornet.net
above.net
chinanet-cq
level3.net
exodus.net
hinet.net
cw.net
interbusiness.it
..
--
Animal
| |
| Hal Murray 2004-03-02, 12:34 am |
| >UUNet hosts more spammers than any other ISP. It has 151 listings on
>the Spammers Block List (SBL), including 34 known spam gangs with
>ROKSO records, according to the anti-spam organisation Spamhaus'
>records for February 2004.
Does that include MCI and Alter.net?
>The second worst offender, Chinanet-QD, has 82 entries on the SBL. It
>hosts Alan Ralsky, listed as the single worst spammer on the ROKSO
>list.
What about Chinanet-*?
--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California. So are all my
other mailboxes. Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
| |
| Kevin McMurtrie 2004-03-02, 3:34 am |
| In article <nl57401h29u92angdt4ih593efkikm5bnk@4ax.com>,
Chris Uren <pressedpork.animal.spamtrap@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> As if we didn't know already. Be interesting to read their response to
> this, or any of the others listed.
Anyone left at UUNET? I think they'd have to hire a contractor to write
the response.
Come to think of it, all of those ISPs are pretty much abandoned and
running on autopilot. Level3 is the only ISP where I've seen signs of
life in the past couple of years.
> http://theregister.com/content/55/35937.html
> UUNet tops spammer-hosting super league
> By Lucy Sherriff
> Posted: 01/03/2004 at 15:49 GMT
> UUNet hosts more spammers than any other ISP. It has 151 listings on
> the Spammers Block List (SBL), including 34 known spam gangs with
> ROKSO records, according to the anti-spam organisation Spamhaus'
> records for February 2004.
>
> The second worst offender, Chinanet-QD, has 82 entries on the SBL. It
> hosts Alan Ralsky, listed as the single worst spammer on the ROKSO
> list.
>
> Banning unsolicited commercial email is a simple matter, Spamhaus
> says. it has examples of well written anti-spam rules for ISPs wanting
> to toughen their stance. Finding the will to enforce these rules is
> another thing.
>
> In its acceptable use policy, UUNet states: "It is explicitly
> prohibited to send unsolicited bulk mail messages (junk mail or spam)
> of any kind (commercial advertising, political tracts, announcements),
> etc."
>
> Abovenet, too, has a clear and prominent anti-spam policy - and is
> number four on the worst-spam ISP list. It host one of the biggest
> villains: Scott Richter/Wholesale Bandwidth, who made number four on
> the invividual offender list. ®
>
> The top 10 is:
> uu.net
>
> chinanet-gd
>
> kornet.net
>
> above.net
>
> chinanet-cq
>
> level3.net
>
> exodus.net
>
> hinet.net
>
> cw.net
>
> interbusiness.it
>
> .
| |
| Chris Uren 2004-03-02, 4:35 am |
| On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 05:10:53 -0000, hmurray@suespammers.org (Hal
Murray) wrote:
>Does that include MCI and Alter.net?
With companies like MCI trading under a range of *brands* I've no idea
what they might be myself ans what degree of responsibility could be
placed on any brand. In the countries lookup section at Spamahuas
neither MCI or Alter.Net are listed as providers. Also if you lookup
what we know as Blueyonder a UK provider they aren't listed under that
name but listed as Telewest.net.
>
>What about Chinanet-*?
Several of the Chinanet operators are listed in the article.
--
Animal
| |
| Chris Uren 2004-03-02, 4:35 am |
| On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:04:31 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
<mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>Anyone left at UUNET? I think they'd have to hire a contractor to write
>the response.
I did make one contact within UUNet several years ago as a result of
ICQ related spam, he was responsive and confirmed nuked accounts over
many weeks. Even taking on board several idea's I put to him.
My guess is eventually he gave or was sacked for actually spending
time dealing with reported incidents.
--
Animal
| |
| Captain Flack 2004-03-02, 7:35 am |
| On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 08:59:48 +0000, Chris Uren
<pressedpork.animal.spamtrap@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:04:31 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
><mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>
>I did make one contact within UUNet several years ago as a result of
>ICQ related spam, he was responsive and confirmed nuked accounts over
>many weeks. Even taking on board several idea's I put to him.
>My guess is eventually he gave or was sacked for actually spending
>time dealing with reported incidents.
We got a visit from a UK uunet manager after numerous complaints about
spam. The guy talked a lot of crap about how it is really difficult to
nuke spammers and how there are issues because uunet grew very rapidly
by taking over other companies and those companies may have contracts
with spammers they can't terminate. We did mention the term 'due
dilligence' but it was obviously lost on him.
He also implied that there was an issue with 'dark forces' and that
uunet employees had to consider the possible consequences of
terminating service to 'bad people'. Little did he know at that time
what I suspected - that the guys running his company were the biggest
criminals.
Anyways, uunet is just as bad... no... worse than they were then, and
they were bad then.
That said, being number one on spamhaus is good for them. Spammers
know where to head for safe bulletproof hosting. I am sure uunet has
plenty of IP space to allocate to spammers and is therefore completely
unconcerned by the spamhaus merit badge they're currently wearing.
Spamhaus only blocks the spammers, so I don't think uunet really give
a damn. If they did, they would have done something already.
--
Popular uprising?
http://www.blairfacedlies.org/statue.htm
captain(underscore)flack(squirlything)ho
tmail(you know what)com
| |
|
| On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:04:31 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie is alleged to have
said:
> In article <nl57401h29u92angdt4ih593efkikm5bnk@4ax.com>,
> Chris Uren <pressedpork.animal.spamtrap@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Anyone left at UUNET? I think they'd have to hire a contractor to write
> the response.
>
> Come to think of it, all of those ISPs are pretty much abandoned and
> running on autopilot. Level3 is the only ISP where I've seen signs of
> life in the past couple of years.
Well, every time I call the published number for MCI/UUnet Abuse I get to
talk to a very convincing auto-response unit, which actually laughs at
jokes I tell. Different voice, each call, including one alto voice that
makes me think of pacts with the devil.
--
Opinions in this posting not necessarily opinion of employer. Are
personal notes, posted using my computer, my account. Not legal opinion
or advice. Void where prohibited. For entertainment only. Your mileage
may vary. Not appropriate for children.
| |
| Huey Callison 2004-03-02, 11:36 am |
| Satch <usenet@satchell.net> wrote:
> Kevin McMurtrie is alleged to have said:
> Well, every time I call the published number for MCI/UUnet Abuse I
> get to talk to a very convincing auto-response unit, which actually
> laughs at jokes I tell. Different voice, each call, including one
> alto voice that makes me think of pacts with the devil.
*WEET*! PERSONAL FOUL, OFFENSE, UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT, USING FACTS IN
A N.A.N-A.E DISCUSSION, FIFTEEN YARDS, REPEAT FIRST DOWN.
--
Huey
| |
| Spambo 2004-03-02, 10:36 pm |
| Chris Uren wrote:
> [snips here & there]
> The top 10 is:
> uu.net
> chinanet-gd
> kornet.net
> above.net
> chinanet-cq
> level3.net
> exodus.net
> hinet.net
> cw.net
> interbusiness.it
It seems weird not seeing Verio on the list. I wonder if
they've seen the light or if interbusiness.it edged them
out of the #10 position?
| |
| Norman L. DeForest 2004-03-02, 10:36 pm |
|
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Satch wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:04:31 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie is alleged to have
> said:
>
>
> Well, every time I call the published number for MCI/UUnet Abuse I get to
> talk to a very convincing auto-response unit, which actually laughs at
> jokes I tell. Different voice, each call, including one alto voice that
> makes me think of pacts with the devil.
Does anyone know how to contact them with a dial telephone?
The one time I tried, I got a menu "For $FOO, press 1; for $BAR, press 2;
for $BAZ, press 3; ...." After two repetitions of the menu, it hung
up on me because I didn't press any buttons.
--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
af380@chebucto.ns.ca [=||=] (A Speech Friendly Site)
"One suspects that by now even *Nigerians* have Nigeria blacklisted ;)."
-- Jim Seymour on 419 scams, news.admin.net-abuse.email, Tue, Nov 19, 2002
| |
| Kevin McMurtrie 2004-03-03, 12:34 am |
| In article <pan.2004.03.02.14.19.35.889112@satchell.net>,
Satch <usenet@satchell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:04:31 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie is alleged to have
> said:
>
>
> Well, every time I call the published number for MCI/UUnet Abuse I get to
> talk to a very convincing auto-response unit, which actually laughs at
> jokes I tell. Different voice, each call, including one alto voice that
> makes me think of pacts with the devil.
I've gotten a couple of them to admit that they're powerless firewall
admins pretending to be the abuse staff after hours. Ask them to look
up a trouble ticket to call their bluff.
The real abuse staff said they can only handle the top 10 or so
complaint sources per month, and even then the result might not be
termination.
| |
| Uncle StoatWarbler 2004-03-03, 11:36 am |
| On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:16:13 +0000, Spambo wrote:
> It seems weird not seeing Verio on the list. I wonder if they've seen
> the light or if interbusiness.it edged them out of the #10 position?
Despite our ragging on Darren, Verio have improved A LOT in recent times.
Seriously. It's even worth sending them abuse reports.
Unfortunately, it seems that several of Darren's underlings need to be
forcibly escorted from the building by security.
Perhaps they're unfirable, but I've heard of some interesting go-rounds
which stopped the instant they reached Darren's ears. It's clear that
several of the abuse people don't want to take complaints.
(For those who've mentioned these issues privately: Posting such go rounds
here would be beneficial. Secrecy in LART handling benefits noone but
spammers and their supporters)
| |
|
|
|
|
|