-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 When starting with www.netsecdb.de in 2008 i'd never expected the decrease of spams to round about 1% of former amount to remain a stable value. Stats from last weeks, monthes and year now give proof that the setup of a central communitation matrix based on worldwide IPv4-whois databases was a great help in fighting abusive mails and a lot more. Inspite of common hosting environments the number of spams is generally lower that the amount of mails containing wanted messaging. The hourly auto-generated configuration files for MTAs like postfix, exim, qmail and MS Excchange 2007 and later used on external partner servers show same progresses. In addition, files that contain the blocking lists for leading TOP25 spammer-country are distributed for free. Starting from scratch with a localized german based environment, we opened netranges from additional countries based on the incoming spamlevel. Nowadays, networks from DE, CH, AT, BE, NL, FR, GB, LU, LI, IE, IT, CZ, SE, GR, PT, NO, PL, IS, FI, ES, DK, SK, HU, RO, BG, LT, LV, EE, US, CA, IL and defined customer nets don't get blocked but get tickets instead. If a non-customers's netrange abuse-email is invalid/non-functional, range gets blocked. Many providers integrated ticket-systems for abuse-handling and improved their quality management a lot. Only a few remained passive and surprisingly a handful of ISPs still seem to work with quota limited mailboxes to avoid a kind of work-overload. Logfiles show an increasing number of HEADER connects to our smtp-ports just to check the current status of single IP or netrange returned by our servers. Within the last monthes, netsol worked on rwhois integration into ARIN whois outputs which finetuned the process of generating abuse-tickets a lot. Many RIPE members started updating their whois records and abuse-mail contacts. Sometimes this results in an very effective workflow with only a few seconds response time over far distance whereas local providers still cannot be reached cause of invalid or missing contact records. Unfortunately the RIPE team stated by mail, that they have no job-order to take care of the integrity of it's database records i.e. finding ancient content with missing or invalid information gives random results. There seems to be no need for a RIPE member to keep it's records up-2-date ? Any additional information regardings spams, exploit attacks, hacking can be taken from www.netsecdb.de site's sections. I wonder how long hosters are willing to pay the traffic, energy and CPU-time for something nobody needs to have. I wonder how long i takes for the DialUp- and Business Customers to learn, that security is a crucial part of internet activities and that their ISP's deliver very diffent qualities behind their mostly coloured flash-animated websites. Looking forward to see the current unsolved problems beeing transported to public clouds in datacenter and poisoned high bandwith customer connections if everything remains 'same procedure as every year' ... Kind regards, Claus - -- Claus Marxmeier - --- Claus Marxmeier EDV-Service Johann-Kierspel-Straße 5 51491 Overath Germany -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAku6h3oACgkQUIsBFYVeBxC82gCfReNpv+rLKbb2n9vRxwoizCv+ 0UAAn18QA/Y6irneBZyvcty9NGiKDHgq =MuBy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Claus Marxmeier wrote: Hello,
When starting with www.netsecdb.de in 2008 i'd never expected the
You defny need to update your pages to explain what the netsecdb.de is for in the first place, looks like our own project under http://www.dnsbl.de, but I cannot find any explanation on your pages. Anyway ...
Many RIPE members started updating their whois records and abuse-mail contacts. Sometimes this results in an very effective workflow with only a few seconds response time over far distance whereas local providers still cannot be reached cause of invalid or missing contact records.
Unfortunately the RIPE team stated by mail, that they have no job-order to take care of the integrity of it's database records i.e. finding ancient content with missing or invalid information gives random results.
There seems to be no need for a RIPE member to keep it's records up-2-date ?
Here I really have to agree. I always voted, that the currently optional "abuse"-field in the whois records HAVE to be filled by the providers AND checked by RIPE. Providers are responsible for whats leaving their networks, but it looks like that the community has absolutely no interest to give the RIPE NCC the order to check those addresses on a regular base. I even mentioned that the RIPE community should develop mechanisms to punish members that do not react to abuse reports delivered to their abuse addresses, and thats defny work for this group to define these mechanisms. One simply mechanism could look like this: - RIPE defines an emailadress scheme for every IP address like ip1.ip2.ip3.ip4@abuse.ripe.net - this scheme is mentioned in every whois output - so, there will be no need for blacklist, other providers or even privat persons to do a whois lookup anymore - any report should be delivered to these addresses and RIPE NCC forwards incoming reports to the abuse address of the members (these could be even non-public) - any provider has to react in a whatever time by replying to the mail including a tracking number generated by RIPE NCC, to the complainant and the RIPE system, mark the reports as spam, false report, beeing worked one, customer blocked aso ... - provider without a valid abuse contact get warned, and in the worst case, will loose their IP allocation complained about - provider that have a valid address, but do not react will loose their IP allocation, if the spam level raised a defined limit according to the size of the providers allocation - RIPE NCC will calculate a value for every provider depending on the amount of IP addresses and incoming spam reports for a couple of months. RIPE then urges the provider to reduce this value on a monthly base. The provider will also loose his alloctions, if the value is not reduced or even rising. Surely a little value of spam reports is allowed for every provider depending on the size of his allocation. Surely their will be lots of details to check, but only this will force any member to actually DO something against spam leaving their networks, to block dialin customers with spambotted PCs, open relays of hacked servers. Kind regards, Frank
I wonder how long hosters are willing to pay the traffic, energy and CPU-time for something nobody needs to have. I wonder how long i takes for the DialUp- and Business Customers to learn, that security is a crucial part of internet activities and that their ISP's deliver very diffent qualities behind their mostly coloured flash-animated websites.
Looking forward to see the current unsolved problems beeing transported to public clouds in datacenter and poisoned high bandwith customer connections if everything remains 'same procedure as every year' ...
Kind regards,
Claus Marxmeier
- --- Claus Marxmeier EDV-Service Johann-Kierspel-Straße 5 51491 Overath Germany
-- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 06.04.2010 10:14, schrieb Frank Gadegast:
You defny need to update your pages to explain what the netsecdb.de is for in the first place, looks like our own project under http://www.dnsbl.de, but I cannot find any explanation on your pages.
It's all in section documents - moved some articles to frontpage to give a quicker overview. english overview: https://www.netsecdb.de/index.php?q=node/64 german overview: https://www.netsecdb.de/index.php?q=node/67 It's not only about spam status - it's a database of all known abusive activities from an IPv4 netrange. dnsbl and similar projects only deal with single IPs and is limited to abusive email sourcing whereas netsecdb imports the netrange information from whois and should be able to reports a status of all abusive activities that originate or from or destinate to this range. It's interface shows the network dependencies (way from 0.0.0.0-255.255.255.255 up to the smallest available segment information). This way, logfiles and processing results can be used to mark netcidrs for different reasons. For example, beeing wormdestination or spamlinkdestination, hosting childporn, is affected to conficker botnet or anything else. netsecdb does not include any personal data from POCs - only a Matrix of IPv4 that shows cybercrime related info. Kind regards, Claus
Claus Marxmeier
- --- Claus Marxmeier EDV-Service Johann-Kierspel-Straße 5 51491 Overath Germany
- -- Claus Marxmeier - --- Claus Marxmeier EDV-Service Johann-Kierspel-Straße 5 51491 Overath Germany USt-IdNr.: DE815023931. info@netsecdb.de http://www.netsecdb.de Office +49 - 2204 - 305 940 Home +49 - 2204 - 917 365 Mobil +49 - 1578 - 363 1130 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ This computer is protected by netsecurity-database from www.netsecdb.de ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Hinweis: Die vorliegende E-Mail enthält möglicherweise vertrauliche Daten. Falls Ihr Name nicht in der Liste der Adressaten erscheint, beachten Sie den Inhalt der E-Mail zunächst nicht weiter, öffnen Sie keine Dateianhänge und wenden Sie sich umgehend an den Absender claus@marxmeier.de Sicherheitserklärung: Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail ist ausschliesslich fuer den bezeichneten Adressaten bestimmt. Wenn Sie nicht der vorgesehene Adressat dieser E-Mail oder dessen Vertreter sein sollten, so beachten Sie bitte, dass jede Form der Kenntnisnahme, Veroeffentlichung, Vervielfaeltigung oder Weitergabe des Inhalts dieser E-Mail unzulaessig ist. Ich bitte Sie, sich in diesem Fall mit dem Absender der E-Mail in Verbindung zu setzen. Ich moechte Sie ausserdem darauf hinweisen, dass die Kommunikation per E-Mail ueber das Internet unsicher ist, da fuer unberechtigte Dritte grundsaetzlich die Moeglichkeit der Kenntnisnahme und Manipulation besteht - auch wenn diese Nachricht durch einen Schlüssel signiert wurde. This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material contained in this message is strictly forbidden. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAku699sACgkQUIsBFYVeBxBnfwCdGbqfScUHk84LF6Uiw4w/ro/o go8AnReeKIbeTCA63H/FkjebT1BfQrgf =cQIn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg- admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Claus Marxmeier Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:59 AM To: frank@powerweb.de; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
english overview: https://www.netsecdb.de/index.php?q=node/64
Why does your web server respond with a 302 redirect to the IP address of the client? $ openssl s_client -connect www.netsecdb.de:443 -quiet depth=1 /C=IL/O=StartCom Ltd./OU=Secure Digital Certificate Signing/CN=StartCom Class 1 Primary Intermediate Server CA verify error:num=20:unable to get local issuer certificate verify return:0 HEAD /index.php?q=node/64 HTTP/1.1 Host: www.netsecdb.de Connection: close HTTP/1.1 302 Found Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:44:47 GMT Server: Notepad/1.0.1 (typing) Location: http://83.145.246.156/?q=node/64 Cache-Control: max-age=1 Expires: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:44:48 GMT Connection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 -- Thor Kottelin http://www.anta.net/
Frank On 6 Apr 2010, at 09:14, Frank Gadegast wrote:
I even mentioned that the RIPE community should develop mechanisms to punish members that do not react to abuse reports delivered to their abuse addresses, and thats defny work for this group to define these mechanisms.
Policy comes from the community - we have a formal process to develop policy that is available at: http://www.ripe.net/docs/pdp.html Section 2.1 shows how to start creating a new RIPE policy and highlights that anyone can start the process, it is a bottom up development, not top down. -=-=- 2.1 Creating a Proposal Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Participants are welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals. Proposals are made using the Policy Proposal template, attached as Appendix B. -=-=- The NCC will be available to help you with drafting the document. HTH Fearghas
Frank
Hi,
On 6 Apr 2010, at 09:14, Frank Gadegast wrote:
I even mentioned that the RIPE community should develop mechanisms to punish members that do not react to abuse reports delivered to their abuse addresses, and thats defny work for this group to define these mechanisms.
Policy comes from the community - we have a formal process to develop policy that is available at:
This group IS the community, so why is their no proposal so far ? After 2 years ? I would love to work together with more expirienced members of the mailling list, but as far as I see it: simply nothing happens ...
Section 2.1 shows how to start creating a new RIPE policy and highlights that anyone can start the process, it is a bottom up development, not top down.
-=-=- 2.1 Creating a Proposal Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Participants are welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals. Proposals are made using the Policy Proposal template, attached as Appendix B.
-=-=-
The NCC will be available to help you with drafting the document.
The first step should be a mandatory abuse-field. We could simply copy APNICs proposal: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-079 Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
HTH
Fearghas
Frank,
This group IS the community, so why is their no proposal so far ? After 2 years ?
There has been an amount of discussion on this topic in both AA and DB working groups over the last few years but no concensus has been reached. At the meeting in Lisbon it was agreed between DB and AA that as no further comments had been made, the matter was to be closed. This does not, obviously, mean that it can't be raised again and both WGs would be most interested in any proposals you may have.
I would love to work together with more expirienced members of the mailling list, but as far as I see it: simply nothing happens ...
The first step should be a mandatory abuse-field.
We could simply copy APNICs proposal: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-079
In this policy Tobias Knecht (tk@abusix.org) has stated that if he is successful in APNIC he plans to propose something similar in the RIPE region. I would suspect he is the best person to talk to about collaboration. I will note again that previous attemtps to make things mandatory have failed, but as we are in a rapidly changing environment, it is difficult to predict what response a renewed proposal will bring. As Fearghas points out, the NCC are always willing to aid people with proposals, as are the relevant WG chairs. I would, of course, reject that the WG has done nothing in two years and we hope, in May, to chair another productive meeting. Thanks, Brian.
For APNIC prop-079 there was a great deal of opposition but still it got the consensus because of optimisim it shares. Again there is no procedure of penalizing the members for not updating the abuse-c contact and than there is no method to make sure the abuse-c is active or not. LACNIC and ARIN already have this policy with slight changes for quite sometime, how was the response in that region related to spam? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Frank,
This group IS the community, so why is their no proposal so far ?
After 2 years ?
There has been an amount of discussion on this topic in both AA and DB working groups over the last few years but no concensus has been reached.
At the meeting in Lisbon it was agreed between DB and AA that as no further comments had been made, the matter was to be closed. This does not, obviously, mean that it can't be raised again and both WGs would be most interested in any proposals you may have.
I would love to work together with more expirienced members of the
mailling list, but as far as I see it: simply nothing happens ...
The first step should be a mandatory abuse-field.
We could simply copy APNICs proposal: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-079
In this policy Tobias Knecht (tk@abusix.org) has stated that if he is successful in APNIC he plans to propose something similar in the RIPE region. I would suspect he is the best person to talk to about collaboration.
I will note again that previous attemtps to make things mandatory have failed, but as we are in a rapidly changing environment, it is difficult to predict what response a renewed proposal will bring. As Fearghas points out, the NCC are always willing to aid people with proposals, as are the relevant WG chairs.
I would, of course, reject that the WG has done nothing in two years and we hope, in May, to chair another productive meeting.
Thanks,
Brian.
For APNIC prop-079 there was a great deal of opposition but still it got the consensus because of optimisim it shares. Again there is no procedure of penalizing the members for not updating the abuse-c contact and than there is no method to make sure the abuse-c is active or not. LACNIC and ARIN
Not yet, that will be the next step. Its quite easy for APNIC to send an email twice a year to all abuse-contacts including a link, that has to be clicked. With that you could publish a list of non-responsive provider and you will have another instrument to measure good from bad. Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
already have this policy with slight changes for quite sometime, how was the response in that region related to spam?
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Frank,
This group IS the community, so why is their no proposal so far ?
After 2 years ?
There has been an amount of discussion on this topic in both AA and DB working groups over the last few years but no concensus has been reached.
At the meeting in Lisbon it was agreed between DB and AA that as no further comments had been made, the matter was to be closed. This does not, obviously, mean that it can't be raised again and both WGs would be most interested in any proposals you may have.
I would love to work together with more expirienced members of the
mailling list, but as far as I see it: simply nothing happens ...
The first step should be a mandatory abuse-field.
We could simply copy APNICs proposal: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-079
In this policy Tobias Knecht (tk@abusix.org) has stated that if he is successful in APNIC he plans to propose something similar in the RIPE region. I would suspect he is the best person to talk to about collaboration.
I will note again that previous attemtps to make things mandatory have failed, but as we are in a rapidly changing environment, it is difficult to predict what response a renewed proposal will bring. As Fearghas points out, the NCC are always willing to aid people with proposals, as are the relevant WG chairs.
I would, of course, reject that the WG has done nothing in two years and we hope, in May, to chair another productive meeting.
Thanks,
Brian.
--00504502cbef1cc23e048390f106 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div>For=A0APNIC prop-079 there was a great deal of opposition but still it= got the consensus because of optimisim it shares. Again there is no proced= ure of penalizing the members for not updating the abuse-c contact and than= there is no method to make sure the abuse-c is active or not. LACNIC and A= RIN already have this policy with slight changes for quite sometime, how wa= s the response in that region related to spam?</div>
<div>=A0</div> <div><br clear=3D"all">Regards,<br><br>Aftab A. Siddiqui<br><br><br></div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Brian Nisbet <sp= an dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:brian.nisbet@heanet.ie">brian.nisbet@h= eanet.ie</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">Frank,=20 <div class=3D"im"><br><br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">This group IS the community, so = why is their no proposal so far ?<br>After 2 years ?<br></blockquote><br></= div> There has been an amount of discussion on this topic in both AA and DB work= ing groups over the last few years but no concensus has been reached.<br><b= r>At the meeting in Lisbon it was agreed between DB and AA that as no furth= er comments had been made, the matter was to be closed. =A0This does not, o= bviously, mean that it can't be raised again and both WGs would be most= interested in any proposals you may have.<br> <br> <blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex= ; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote"> <div class=3D"im">I would love to work together with more expirienced membe= rs of the<br>mailling list, but as far as I see it: simply nothing happens = ...<br><br></div> <div class=3D"im">The first step should be a mandatory abuse-field.<br><br>= We could simply copy APNICs proposal:<br><a href=3D"http://www.apnic.net/po= licy/proposals/prop-079" target=3D"_blank">http://www.apnic.net/policy/prop= osals/prop-079</a><br> </div></blockquote><br>In this policy Tobias Knecht (<a href=3D"mailto:tk@a= busix.org" target=3D"_blank">tk@abusix.org</a>) has stated that if he is su= ccessful in APNIC he plans to propose something similar in the RIPE region.= =A0I would suspect he is the best person to talk to about collaboration.<b= r> <br>I will note again that previous attemtps to make things mandatory have = failed, but as we are in a rapidly changing environment, it is difficult to= predict what response a renewed proposal will bring. =A0As Fearghas points= out, the NCC are always willing to aid people with proposals, as are the r= elevant WG chairs.<br> <br>I would, of course, reject that the WG has done nothing in two years an= d we hope, in May, to chair another productive meeting.<br><br>Thanks,<br><= font color=3D"#888888"><br>Brian.<br><br></font></blockquote></div><br>
--00504502cbef1cc23e048390f106--
On 6 Apr 2010, at 01:59, Claus Marxmeier wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
When starting with www.netsecdb.de in 2008 i'd never expected the decrease of spams to round about 1% of former amount to remain a stable value. Stats from last weeks, monthes and year now give proof that the setup of a central communitation matrix based on worldwide IPv4-whois databases was a great help in fighting abusive mails and a lot more.
Inspite of common hosting environments the number of spams is generally lower that the amount of mails containing wanted messaging. The hourly auto-generated configuration files for MTAs like postfix, exim, qmail and MS Excchange 2007 and later used on external partner servers show same progresses.
In addition, files that contain the blocking lists for leading TOP25 spammer-country are distributed for free.
Starting from scratch with a localized german based environment, we opened netranges from additional countries based on the incoming spamlevel. Nowadays, networks from DE, CH, AT, BE, NL, FR, GB, LU, LI, IE, IT, CZ, SE, GR, PT, NO, PL, IS, FI, ES, DK, SK, HU, RO, BG, LT, LV, EE, US, CA, IL and defined customer nets don't get blocked but get tickets instead. If a non-customers's netrange abuse-email is invalid/non-functional, range gets blocked.
Many providers integrated ticket-systems for abuse-handling and improved their quality management a lot. Only a few remained passive and surprisingly a handful of ISPs still seem to work with quota limited mailboxes to avoid a kind of work-overload.
Logfiles show an increasing number of HEADER connects to our smtp-ports just to check the current status of single IP or netrange returned by our servers.
Within the last monthes, netsol worked on rwhois integration into ARIN whois outputs which finetuned the process of generating abuse-tickets a lot.
Many RIPE members started updating their whois records and abuse-mail contacts. Sometimes this results in an very effective workflow with only a few seconds response time over far distance whereas local providers still cannot be reached cause of invalid or missing contact records.
Unfortunately the RIPE team stated by mail, that they have no job-order to take care of the integrity of it's database records i.e. finding ancient content with missing or invalid information gives random results.
There seems to be no need for a RIPE member to keep it's records up-2-date ?
Any additional information regardings spams, exploit attacks, hacking can be taken from www.netsecdb.de site's sections.
I wonder how long hosters are willing to pay the traffic, energy and CPU-time for something nobody needs to have. I wonder how long i takes for the DialUp- and Business Customers to learn, that security is a crucial part of internet activities and that their ISP's deliver very diffent qualities behind their mostly coloured flash-animated websites.
Looking forward to see the current unsolved problems beeing transported to public clouds in datacenter and poisoned high bandwith customer connections if everything remains 'same procedure as every year' ...
Kind regards,
Claus
Claus You need to learn the meaning of the word "diplomacy" Otherwise none of us will want to help you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: Dear Michele,
Looking forward to see the current unsolved problems beeing transported to public clouds in datacenter and poisoned high bandwith customer connections if everything remains 'same procedure as every year' ...
Kind regards,
Claus
Claus
You need to learn the meaning of the word "diplomacy"
Otherwise none of us will want to help you
Im a friend of results also, diplomacy does not help in all cases. Sometimes somebody has to step forward to wake everybody up. Whats about the word "sarcasm" ? I like this word too ... * do we have at least a definition of spam after 2 years ? * any recommendations to the community so far ? * did anybody (except me) send an idea to this list about how to reduce the amount of spam in the RIPE region ? Come on and be honest, what result can this group show by now ? Anything that will reduce our spam load ? Cant even see the horizon. Kind regards, Frank
Regards
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
On Apr 6, 2010, at 2:47 AM, Frank Gadegast wrote:
* do we have at least a definition of spam after 2 years ?
There've been pointless arguments about the definition of spam for about 16 years, actually. -- J.D. Falk
participants (9)
-
Aftab Siddiqui -
Brian Nisbet -
Claus Marxmeier -
Fearghas McKay -
Frank Gadegast -
Frank Gadegast -
J.D. Falk -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight -
Thor Kottelin