 GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK |  Good work people
So now I can keep hosting my HL2 server and all is well.
Power to the people.;) | |
|  | mariolanning
join:2002-04-19
Tucson, AZ | Re: Good work people Hmm They never cought me with my 2 web servers and E-Mail server.. | |
| | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | Terrible news. I wish they held up that 5 dollar fine. | |
| | | GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK
| Re: Good work people Yeah it sure would be terrible if a security expert such as yourself *somehow* got a 0 day exploit and was forced to pay... GULP... 14,000 spams * $5 = $70,000 !
I hope you were being sarcastic but if not, enjoy your fine - you security expert you! | |
| | | |
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| Re: Good work people I am no security expert. I think the main reason I am fine is because I don't click on links in instant messenger, install anything that popups in a web browser, use webmail clients that scan for viruses, and have an updated virus scanner running. Nothing out of the ordinary, or anything that anyone would consider expert. | |
| | | | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Good work people With the recent WMF Zero-Day exploit all you would have needed to have done is viewed a webpage that included an exploited WMF file on it. That could have gotten you infected which, in turn, could have turned your system into a spam-spewing zombie. I think warning letters followed by service cutoffs are a better solution. (So long as there is sufficient customer service available to contest wrongly applied warnings/cutoffs and to restore service to people who clean their systems.)
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
| | | | | shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA | Well I guess you're impenetrable, untouchable, certainly because you think you're not an expert. You can never be too vigilant. | |
| | | | | |
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
1 edit | Re: Good work people said by shashinka  :Well I guess you're impenetrable, untouchable, certainly because you think you're not an expert. You can never be too vigilant. Of course not impenetrable, but I would think everyone would agree that just using a small amount of intelligence while on the internet is all it takes to be fairly secure. Unfortunately for you, you probably have clicked every ok message you run across and loaded some nasty stuff on your computer, so it hurts you to hear people say that that only happened because you lacked basic intelligence.
I suggest you get a platform that's not worth hacking, like a mac. | |
| | | | | | | shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
| Re: Good work people You got me. Actually I do watch what I install, click-on, and read, etc. On top of that I evaluate all sorts of security suites: McAfee's free suite that comes with Comcast runs on several of my families machines, Zonealarm on dial-up with my father, Charter's free suite on 1 of my machines, and my Cisco work computer has Cisco Security Agent with another vendors AV.
On the other hand you said you're running nothing and are nieve to believe that just because you do what you do that you're safe and duh to the others who don't know so!
I constantly update family members to watch what they install and what they're doing but definitely need to make sure they have suites because they yes are too ignorant about the way things work, unlike myself since I am all day on the computer reading, implenting and testing these systems. | |
| | | | | 
DreamWraith
Premium
join:2004-04-07
Mount Vernon, WA
 ·Comcast
| So what you are trying to say is:
You don't:
Click on links in IM.
Install anything in pop-ups.
Use web-mail clients with virus scan.
Have an updated virus scanner.
Next time you might want to keep an eye on your grammar.
:P | |
| | | | | | shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
1 edit | Re: Good work people No I am not saying that and thanks for being my grammar checker. Just because he doesn't do these things doesn't mean that he should not be worried about infections. Lets not be nieve. | |
| | | | NetDroid2
join:2004-08-16
Excelsior, MN
| hmm... if they would of kept the $5 per spam in there we would have FTTP by the end of the year!
(That is if there was a spam out break this year.)
Or at the very least a nice network upgrade.
Its nice they changed the wording if I ever decided to go to DSL. | |
| | | | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Good work people said by NetDroid2 :hmm... if they would of kept the $5 per spam in there we would have FTTP by the end of the year! Nah, the CxO's will just get larger bonuses
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| I too was one that told them to put thier Business Class DSL where the sun didn't shine.
However, there has never been an issue with running servers on their service. Hell, they even have forward and reverse DNS features in their control panels.
They just were being Qwest trying to be more like cable tv, the service they bag on all the time. I think it's funny.. having been in the industry for so long, I have seen the battles play out on the actual battle field. Cable, especially comcast, always swore that they would not play the same games that satellite was. They spoke of all thier good qualities and frowned on the new business models and advertisment slams of DBS - now comcast and cable engage in the same thing. Futher, Telco makes claims they are better than cable services for various reasons but give them time, they start to play the same game. Qwest wanted to stop allowing servers "becasue they were afraid of bandwidth hogs affecting others in the area" - but wait! Isn't DSL a dedicated line I asked? He didn't have an answer.
The day Qwest stops allowing servers on their line is the day I don't need them any more. It's the ONLY reason I have them.
From what I was told by both a Qwest 'department manager' and my attorney, whom I sicked on Qwest - they have had indeed had many complaints. It's my understanding they threw this out to see if anyone would bit back - looks like they did. | |
| | | shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
| Re: Good work people Yes you would be correct that your specific copper line drop is the only one using the bandwidth for that dsl connection unlike cable where you can see others transmissions (shared medium like ethernet csma/cd or csma/ca) but you still have shared bandwidth on the DSLAM.
I have used servers on Charter, Speakeasy, and Covad but not on Verizon DSL which is my area. I don't think they are worried about people who know what they're doing with low bandwidth servers for their home such as people tinkering with SMTP, POP, HTTP and basic FTP servers but of those who maybe running FTP sites with illegal software, porn, or busy gaming servers. Their bandwidth engineers design the connections to these multiplexers anticipating the most residential traffic. Having these clauses in their TOS allows them to shut them down if they start getting latency or slowness complaints out of a certain DSLAM shelf. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Good work people Not sure if you know this, but I am in the industry and am very clear on how the technology works since I actually put my hands on this stuff.
However, there is something you are forgetting on not understanding about Qwest - they sold a service that was designed for business use and now they want to apply a residential TOS to it. It's not going to work.
Qwest, formerly US West, was the first company to take DSL seriously and deploy to the public while many others were busy dipping in cellular phones. US West/Qwest has always delivered a service that was not restrictive and had some of the most tools in place for the very use of netwokring including email, ftp, and web.
Qwest is back pedaling, and not realizing it. They want to build in their "protection" for themselves at the expense of their own product. It's like saying, "here, use our netwrok for your business use, run your servers and host your own email" then deliver the TOS that says you can't do any of that. The new TOS was poorly written as Qwest often has issues with one hand talking to the other.
Unless you are in the Qwest area, it's hard for you to understand what's going on.  | |
| | | | | shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA | Re: Good work people Very sorry. I didn't know that it was Business class that they were applying this to. | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: Good work people Yea... they are applying it to all classes of DSL. It even states in the TOS 'no matter residential or business' or something like that. | |
| | 
BJGillette
@ccreminder.com
| Greg @ Techdirt pointed out an error in our story at Email Battles. The $5 spam charge is still in.
I took the AUP copy from the sidebar instead of item 9 in the High Speed Internet Subscriber Agreement PDF. Qwest got more credit than deserved.
At Email Battles, we have changed our copy to:Panicky Qwest execs responded, apparently bringing the legal hounds to heel. As a result, Qwest's Acceptable Use Policy no longer mentions a $5.00 per message charge at all. Correction: As of this writing, Qwest has not dropped the blue sky $5.00/message spam liability. But Qwest has changed the server limitations. Sorry for the inconvenience to all.
BJ Gillette, Editor
Email Battles | |
| phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| Why remove it? Just modify it... Okay... I don't understanding why Qwest didn't just modify the provision instead of removing it. Simply add something along the lines of "...for knowingly sending spam messages..." I am sure there is some better 'legal' phrase, but that pretty much takes care of it. The burden would need to be placed on Qwest to prove the user "knowingly" sent spam... but that is pretty easily taken care of.
Exmaple, Qwest detects spam coming from a system. They inform the user of that system to cease and desist. Once the user has been notified, they have X number of days to stop it. So, either the person is purposely sending spam and they've been caught and have a chance to stop, or the person's system is infected and the user has now been informed of the infection and should do something about it. Even in a situation where a security flaw existed that the user truly could not have done anything to prevent it... doesn't mean the user should still be allowed to keep their system connected and spewing spam/viruses/etc. If the infected machine is not fixed, the account/system is prevented access to the network. If an account refuses to stop sending spam, the account is denied access to the internet.
Ignorance is never an excuse for continued problems. Simply because you personally don't know how to disinfect a computer doesn't give you the right to continue using a system that is infected and causing problems! However, a person does have a responsibility once they are made aware of the problem to correct that problem. If they can't fix it themselves... they should pay someone else to fix it. This makes me think of emissions testing for cars. If your car fails.... you don't get to claim... "I don't know how to fix a car..." Instead... you drive your car to a repair shop, and have it fixed. | |
| | AT1
join:2003-03-05
Sedalia, MO | Re: Why remove it? Just modify it... Simple solution is to cut the users access 'till the virus is removed. | |
| | | 
ewth8tr
Premium
join:2005-04-03
Salt Lake City, UT
| Re: Why remove it? Just modify it... said by AT1 :Simple solution is to cut the users access 'till the virus is removed. This is what is currently done. | |
| 
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| This sucks, IMO QWEST is a spam sewer. Rather than doing something sensible like changing it to read "$5 for every spam email that is intentionally sent", they defang their AUP.
Not that QWORST bothers to respond to LARTS anyway.
In reality, they have acted as if they just don't give a hoot about the junk that is spewing out of their network. That's why they are on so many blocklists.
No less than 7 major ROKSO listed spammers have been identified as operating from QWEST IP space:
»www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings.la···west.net
looks as if some of the NANAE crew thinks that teaching clooless users a hard lesson about letting their box get zombified would be a GOOD THING(TM)
»tinyurl.com/akffn | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: This sucks, IMO Wow! Those are some pretty, well, I will resefve comment.
However, when it comes to spam lists...? I would rethink the spam lists themselves actually. Most of them being run but 18 year old hobbiests. They are poorly managed, if at all, and cause many large businessess issues.
If I had my choice, spamhause and the rest would be outlaw'd. (Unless they clean up thier act) These rogue operations cost alot of network operators more time and money because of the poor operations of these lists.
However, I would like to see ISPs required to offer spam filtering at no cost tot he user. | |
| | |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| Re: This sucks, IMO said by fiberguy :However, when it comes to spam lists...? I would rethink the spam lists themselves actually. Most of them being run but 18 year old hobbiests. They are poorly managed, if at all, and cause many large businessess issues. Can you back those assertion up?
Name one RBL that is run by an 18 year old hobbiest.
Poorly managed?
In what way?
All of the major lists delist severs when the delisting criteria are met. I have very rarly seen a false listings.
(in fact, I don't recall ever seeing one. Seen plenty of accusations, but when they are researched, the accusations invariably turn out to be false)
Can you give examples to prove me wrong?
If you have them, I'd welcome them. Seriously.
said by fiberguy :If I had my choice, spamhause and the rest would be outlaw'd. (Unless they clean up thier act) They are lists, only lists, not an actual block mechanism They block nothing in and of themselves - the user of the list will have to instrall and configure software that deliberately checks these lists and choose to reject mail if the sending server is on the lists.
You can't outlaw the publishing of a list. Especially if, in the case of most RBL's, what criteria are used to make the list are cearly defined (and that varies from list to list) and can it can be shown that the list maintainers are adhering to their own criteria.
How can one legally say someone does not have a right to mainatain a list of servers that are open proxies? Or a list of IP addrsesses that have generic rDNS information? Or that have sent mail to spam trap addresses (thus proving they are mailing to harvested addresses?)
Outlawing the publishing of a list would be a violation of the first amendment (if done in the USA - other countries may or may not have such restrictions)
said by fiberguy : These rogue operations cost alot of network operators more time and money because of the poor operations of these lists. Rouge in your opinion. Steve Linford (founder of SpamHaus) has previously won the ISPA Internet Hero of the year award, and has also been considered as a candidate for knighthood. So a few folks would seem to disagree with your assesment, at least for Spamhaus. I picked them as as the example in my original post becase I thought most of the internet was in agreement that they were pretty much beyond reproach.
"poor operations" - again, can you site examples?
I see the lists cause a lot of time and money to rogue networks... which is sort of the point, no?
said by fiberguy :However, I would like to see ISPs required to offer spam filtering at no cost tot he user. Hmmm... so how would you do that? Bayesian filtering as the main line of defense? Thanks, but no thanks. Bayesian filtering's success rate is abyssmal -- an order of magnitude more false postives than blacklists from what I have seen trying it in my own domain. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: This sucks, IMO I don't need to prove anything to you. The facts are there if you wish to find them. It's apparent that you don't do with this stuff on a daily basis as some of do.
Nice try in calling me a liar bud.
Troll away. | |
| | | | |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
3 edits | Re: This sucks, IMO Um, I DO do this on a day to day basis.
YOU made the assertion, it's up to you to prove it.
Otherwise you are the troll, not me.
Just so you cannot claim I have not reasearched/don't know what I speak of:
Major RBL operators-
SPAMHAUS - is actual corporation incorporated in the UK - no 18 year old hobbiests there. As I said before, founder of this list has won awards for the lists contribution to the internet.
SPEWS - hidden owenership. No one knows - but given that the owner went through a lot to stay anonymous, likely not an 18 yr old hobbiest.
sorbs - matt sullivan is not an 18 year old hobbiest - he is a sysadmin at University of Queensland's (AU) and runs his list from there.
CBL - Andrew and the CBL team don't seem to be 18 year old hobbiests. Odd how they are hosted by the same guy who hosts samspade.org, no?
NJABL- my dayjob was actually listed by them as a dynamic address. Not their fault, rDNS sure made it look as if it was likely dynamic. They corrected the listing in a couple of days time. Not sure who runs that list, but they act professionally enough for my tastes.
ahbl - brian bruns is not an 18 year old hobbiest. Neither is andrew kisrch.
shall I go on? | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Re: This sucks, IMO Yea.. it's kinda entertaining listening to someone not getting the point.. I take it you aren't in the industry, and I take it that you don't spend money becase of these rogue spam list operators who are wreckless in adding non-spamming servers to their list at their own whim.
In my opinion, each and every person you act as if they are your buds should be put in jail. There is a fine line between doing good and doing bad. Since they allow information to be added carelessly to their lists, they cause alot of valid and honest ISPs servers to their list which cost businesses both large and especially small to loose money and customers.
Shall I go on?
BTW: Learn the definition of a troll, i*****t. | |
| | | | | | |
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
1 edit | Re: This sucks, IMO Yes, it IS enetertaining listeneing to you.
Yes, please do go on. Please give me examples of addresses being "carelessly to their lists"
"Valid and Honest" is not a criteria for whether or not they should be on a list or not. What comes from their server, (or how it is configured, in the case of open relay lists) is what matters. Only that. Intentions count 0%, results are what matters.
Frankly, IMO, most of the admins who's servers wind up on such lists should be in jail, not the other way around. Most of the spam host/open ralay lists are pretty darn hard to wind up on - you need to send mail to a spam trap address or actually be an open relay.
"we got hacked" is not an excuse for admins to allow crap to spew from their servers for 2 months and do nothing about it, after repeated complaints. Etc. There are a million and one lame excuses for incompetence.
btw - definition of troll - someone who posts inflamatory comments or assertions for the sole purpose of starting an argument - you know, comments like "should be put in jail" or baseless assertions that don't jibe with reality, such as "18 year old hobbiests"
Hmmmm.... just realized - fiberguy from minneapolis.... gee... wonder who your employer might be, hmmmm? lesee, who is the ilec there.... | |
| VikingStorm
join:2002-06-25
Omaha, NE | "Began an Internet wide gripe session" "began an Internet wide gripe session that lasted several days"
I don't know why but I started laughing when I read that.:D | |
| 
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
 ·DIRECTV
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Well the dumb question is "Where does end user responsibility lie?"
If you don't hit them financially they won't care. Even at postal rates say $0.39 a piece @ 14,000 e-mails sent, that still is a roughly $6000 fine. I could even agree at $0.01 a piece, if the quantity is high enough.
I guarantee if my wife got something like that she would think twice before leaving her computer open (which I keep her pretty locked down most times). Bottom line is as long as it does not affect them short of the monthly price they are not going to care.
I hate to be evil, and I am glad for some end users but there really needs to be a line drawn somewhere.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this. Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!! | |
| | nonymous
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
| Re: Well the dumb question is "I guarantee if my wife got something like that she would think twice before leaving her computer open (which I keep her pretty locked down most times). Bottom line is as long as it does not affect them short of the monthly price they are not going to care. "
The correct terminology is you help to keep her safe not locked down. Or she would think twice, (edit me seems you keep a one up on her). | |
| | |
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
·DIRECTV
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Well the dumb question is said by nonymous :The correct terminology is you help to keep her safe not locked down. Or she would think twice, (edit me seems you keep a one up on her). Well locked down meaning she cannot install things without my permissions. I keep one up on the computers because if I don't I get more questions than I have time to answer.
My parents are literally computer illiterate to the full extents of the word. Keeping certain XP functionary controls from them is one way I can keep certain things or instances to a minimum. I did this with my sister once (turned her machine loose) now she complains all the time and I spend once a week cleaning it off. Why? Well she clicks on stupid stuff. Finally last week I finally locked her permissions down, once and for all after cleaning the machine. Now, no more complaints and the machine runs fine..
Bottom line is if I am going to maintain it and keep it up to date, and get no compensation for it, you play by my rules.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this. Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!! | |
| | | |
|
|
Qwest Revamps Controversial User Agreement