Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?

[Scott Granados <scott () graphidelix net>]

I do agree here that using fake addressing and so on is really bad on 
many levels.  I know on one of the networks I was involved in recently 
we had a customer who was a spammer and I pulled his services very 
quickly, some might even say to quickly.  I also realize that even 
though I personally don't find it to bad to to deal with others don't 
agree so like I stated my professional policy differs from what I do 
personally.

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:

> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote:
>
> > deal with spam is.  Honestly sure I get it like everyone else, in some
> > of my accounts more than others but I also get a real truckload in my
> > snailmail box.  Just as with all the pottery barn catalogs <no offense
> > to pottery barn I guess>:) I have a delete key just like my trash can.
> > I know at one time the argument was made, and quite correctly that
> > people were paying to receive this service and these messages cost them
> > money. Today with flat rate access and many people not paying on a per
> > packet basis it seems to me that the responsibility lies with the end
> > user to filter properly and or dress that delete key.  I always shut
> > down customers who spam and disrupt service simply because I don't want
> > the backlash or want specific ips blocked but in a way I don't feel its
> > right that the carriers do the filtering it seems tome up to the end
> > user.
>
> Let me put this into real world terms.
>
> I run a mail server (among other things) with about 4000 mailboxes, and
> about 40,000 messages a day.
>
> over 85% of all mail on average is marked as spam by spamassasin on this
> mail server.
>
> I, late last year, had to upgrade it to a multiprocessor box with
> gigabytes of memory, striped raid 0+1, etc. etc. etc. to handle the load.
>
> I could have used a mail server only 15% of the size of this one.  Or
> better put, I could have used a 300mhz pentium III box with low-end IDE
> drives and a modest amount (256MB) of memory instead of the Dual PRocessor
> 6-SCSI 2GB ram thing we are running now.
>
> Add to that the 8-10 hours a week we spend cleaning up messes related to
> spammers who decide that sending 50,000+ messages as fast as they can to
> us is a good thing.   For instance, on thursday of last week, we took
> almost 5000 messages in about a hour from one spammer in particular.  The
> mail server *can't* handle this load so it basically was a Denial of
> Service attack.
>
> Right now there are 5000 messages in our mail queue which are spam bounces
> which aren't being accepted by the spammer's mail server.
>
> I could go on and on and on and on.
>
> I might be more inclined to tolerate the spammers if they weren't bad net
> citizens.  They forge their email addressses so they can't receive
> bounces.  They don't have any consideration about the load they are
> placing on the remote mail server (I've seen 40 streams open at once to my
> mail server from the same class C - all injecting mail as fast as
> possible).   And on and on and on.
>
> - Forrest W. Christian (forrestc () imach com) AC7DE
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Innovation Machine Ltd.                              P.O. Box 5749
> http://www.imach.com/                                Helena, MT  59604
> Home of PacketFlux Technogies and BackupDNS.com         (406)-442-6648
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>       Protect your personal freedoms - visit http://www.lp.org/