[CLUE-Tech] Brute force attack from host 208.188.115.21

[Collins Richey]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 04:11:20 -0600
Charles Oriez <coriez at oriez.org> wrote:

[ lots of valid points snipped ]

> 
> Spam has gotten to the point that it has seriously disrupted
> communications with everyone.  And at one point, Comcast was one of
> the biggest sources of spam on the Internet.  
> 
> Sure, I have .client.comcast.net in my access file with a REJECT next
> to it. Sure, SORBS, SPEWS, AHBL, and I think Spamhaus, to name four
> widely used dnsbl's, have that same sub domain listed as a spam
> source.  For a brief period before it was listed though, 25% of the
> spam hitting my server had that domain in a received header.
> 
> I think the evidence was more than adequate to justify listing that 
> subdomain, and the listing wasn't the least bit over zealous.  
> 

> coriez at oriez.org 39  34' 34.4"N / 105 00' 06.3"W
> "You want us to hit delete.  A blocking list is basically a diesel
> delete key.  A blocking list is the bulk delete response to unwanted
> bulk email. When we use a blocking list, we are hitting delete, as you
> ask us to do.  Why do you object?"  -- David Canzi
> 

Much of what you say is valid, and I've heard it all before, but there
has to be a better mechanism than blanket discrimination directed at all
users who share a common isp. You only need to extend this into the
political realm to see just how objectionable this approach is. 

In most major cities in certain areas of the city you could probably
drop the crime rate several hundred percent by rounding up all the males
in a certain age group that are [pick the appropriate ethnic group] and
keeping them in jail. It doesn't matter that some of the [pick one]
have never harmed anyone, they are [pick one]. Or, even better, I own a
jewelry store that refuses to let [pick one] into the store because some
of the [pick one] have been known to shoplift.

I'm just happy that I've only experienced this sort of discrimination a
few times over the years while using my excellent provider, excellent
meaning that it works well for me and I receive relatively little spam
that I can choose to ignore. I'm sorry, but the "diesel delete key"
employed by the dsnbl services effectively blocks legitimate users, and
I am opposed to that ham-fisted approach. To be exact, they are not
hitting delete as I asked them to do, since I never asked anyone to
delete my emails.

I could agree with you, however, that it would be a better world without
easily trojaned windows machines. Even with excellent virus protection,
all windows machines could eventually become trojans, since virus
protection only protects against the known vulnerabilities, and there
seem to be an inexhaustible supply of new ones.

In summary, we agree to disagree.

-- 
 /\/\
( CR ) Collins Richey
 \/\/     fly Independence Air - they run Linux