From owner-freebsd-current Fri May 23 10:30:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA03379 for current-outgoing; Fri, 23 May 1997 10:30:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from troll.uunet.ca (troll.uunet.ca [142.77.1.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA03314; Fri, 23 May 1997 10:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost by troll.uunet.ca with SMTP id <21023-1853>; Fri, 23 May 1997 13:29:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 13:29:09 -0400 From: Cat Okita To: Terry Lambert cc: "Duane H. Hesser" , current@hub.freebsd.org, jmb@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: UU.NET, SPAM, and Cyberpromotions (was Re: usregsite.com) In-Reply-To: <199705231636.JAA07391@phaeton.artisoft.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 May 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > > I have no specific information on that (if you do, I'd be interested > > to hear it). Uunet is the grandaddy of ISP's, and I would, by > > reputation and past experience, expect them to behave responsibly. > > Perhaps they've grown too big, and I didn't notice? > > They've stated that they no longer run a public posting host; however, > I have recently received mail from an account of theirs being used by > Cyberpromptions "mailbomber" program; headers were: > > | Received: from 206.13.28.25 > | (1Cust52.Max31.Chicago.IL.MS.UU.NET [153.35.113.180]) > | by mail-gw.pacbell.net (8.8.5/8.7.1) with SMTP id EAA07399; > | Thu, 8 May 1997 04:09:14 -0700 (PDT) > > I did report it, and haven't seen anything since after the second time > I had to report it to them; I got their canned response, so it may be > that they have taken care of this one. > > I think, though, that they are still in the position where they can > be illicitly used as a mail relay. Just a quick note here - Our customers are allowed to use us as a mail posting host (depending on account type), and many of our customers chose to use our news servers, rather than setting up one of their own. As a result, we have occasional problems with people using *legitimate* connections abusing this access. This is quite a bit different from maintaining open access to all comers... > Currently, I'm working on site/IP based SPAM filtering for a mail > server product that my company has sold into tens of thousands of > installations, so if they choose the install option, Cyberpromotions > and their ilk will be blocked for new installations. I have it on > good authority that similar changes are going into Post.Office and > the default sendmail distribution. Serves them right for SPAMming > their transport providers. 8-). Sounds good to me *grin* Cat Okita Systems Administrator, UUNET Canada