doh! i meant that before they yanked his connectivity his computer was pretty much useless for the relay of spam. but see my
other article to discuss that.
Verio yanked John's internet connectivity about 11 am this morning, with 3 hours warning.
Unfortunately, that means they yanked my internet connectivity as well, because we share a T-1 connection. And that means that name service for the country of Eritrea is on shakier ground.
Had they given me more warning, I would have been able to arrange for alternate connectivity. As it is, it's going to be a rough couple of weeks.
Look it up if you want:
whois -h whois.networksolutions.com =er
I'm at 140.174.131.100; packets to which now stop at John's subnet.
There was nothing exigent about the alleged virus propagation that required this kind of response. I think Verio was just using this as an excuse to get John because they're pissed at him after trading legal threats about his relaying spam. (See my other posting if you want to argue about spam relay versus anonymous email; as of now John's computer is pretty much useless for the relay of spam.)
Folks arguing about spamming are missing the point. John does think spam is a free speech issue, and was allowing spam to be relayed through his server. But that has not been the case for at least several months.
John reconfigured his email server six months ago to make it almost useless to spammers. Yes, that was a result of threats from Verio, and yes, you can forward a small amount of email (anonymously), but you can't relay large amounts.
That doesn't stop the server from being useful to lots of virus-infested hosts to forwrad small amounts of email (each). But I think you should think about whether that has any significant impact on the ability of this virus to propagate.
Look for another follow-up on the impact this has on me.
Slashdot Mirror
doh! i meant that before they yanked his connectivity his computer was pretty much useless for the relay of spam. but see my other article to discuss that.
Verio yanked John's internet connectivity about 11 am this morning, with 3 hours warning.
Unfortunately, that means they yanked my internet connectivity as well, because we share a T-1 connection. And that means that name service for the country of Eritrea is on shakier ground.
Had they given me more warning, I would have been able to arrange for alternate connectivity. As it is, it's going to be a rough couple of weeks.
Look it up if you want:
whois -h whois.networksolutions.com =er
I'm at 140.174.131.100; packets to which now stop at John's subnet.
There was nothing exigent about the alleged virus propagation that required this kind of response. I think Verio was just using this as an excuse to get John because they're pissed at him after trading legal threats about his relaying spam. (See my other posting if you want to argue about spam relay versus anonymous email; as of now John's computer is pretty much useless for the relay of spam.)
Folks arguing about spamming are missing the point. John does think spam is a free speech issue, and was allowing spam to be relayed through his server. But that has not been the case for at least several months. John reconfigured his email server six months ago to make it almost useless to spammers. Yes, that was a result of threats from Verio, and yes, you can forward a small amount of email (anonymously), but you can't relay large amounts. That doesn't stop the server from being useful to lots of virus-infested hosts to forwrad small amounts of email (each). But I think you should think about whether that has any significant impact on the ability of this virus to propagate. Look for another follow-up on the impact this has on me.