Re: [mailop] Cloudflare not taking actions agains spamers?
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 06:17, Benoit Panizzon wrote: <...> > Unfortunately that redirector service is run by cloudflare. So the > complaints reach the cloudflare abuse desk. And their usual reply is: > > We accept the following kinds of reports: > > Copyright infringement & DMCA violations > Trademark infringement > Child pornography > Phishing & malware > Violent threats > > So as I understand, spam is not something they will take any kind of > actions against. > > Has Cloudflare turned to the 'dark' side? :-) > > What's your experience with spamvertized sites behind cloudflare? I've never even gotten them to terminate sites that fall into the above category, they give the "We're not a host, just a proxy" excuse. They can yell and scream all they want about not being a host, but they also advertise that "CloudFlare will serve your website's static pages from our cache" when your origin server isn't reachable, that falls into my definition of being a host, even if only a short term. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Cloudflare not taking actions agains spamers?
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Dave Warren wrote: > They > can yell and scream all they want about not being a host, but they also > advertise that "CloudFlare will serve your website's static pages from > our cache" when your origin server isn't reachable, that falls into my > definition of being a host, even if only a short term. > Does that definition of 'being a host' extend to your Chrome, Firefox, and IE cache as well? -A ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Cloudflare not taking actions agains spamers?
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 21:44, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Dave Warren > wrote: >> They >> can yell and scream all they want about not being a host, but >> they also >> advertise that "CloudFlare will serve your website's static >> pages from >> our cache" when your origin server isn't reachable, that falls >> into my >> definition of being a host, even if only a short term. > > Does that definition of 'being a host' extend to your Chrome, Firefox, > and IE cache as well? If my Firefox cache is serving the content to third parties on behalf of the owner of the site hosting the content, yes. Mine is not configured to do so, and I can suspect any reasonable person would know that, so this seems to be a particularly stupid question. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Cloudflare not taking actions agains spamers?
You're the one who said "CloudFlare will serve your website's static pages from our cache...that falls into my definition of being a host, even if it's only short term". So will your browser. /nitpick Anyways, I thought there was a court case back in mid-90s where Compuserve or Prodigy or something was ruled to not be responsible for content flowing through their networks as they are simply the conduit. Wouldn't that apply to something like CloudFlare? -A On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Dave Warren wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 21:44, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Dave Warren wrote: > > They > can yell and scream all they want about not being a host, but they also > advertise that "CloudFlare will serve your website's static pages from > our cache" when your origin server isn't reachable, that falls into my > definition of being a host, even if only a short term. > > > Does that definition of 'being a host' extend to your Chrome, Firefox, and > IE cache as well? > > > If my Firefox cache is serving the content to third parties on behalf of > the owner of the site hosting the content, yes. Mine is not configured to > do so, and I can suspect any reasonable person would know that, so this > seems to be a particularly stupid question. > > > > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > > ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Cloudflare not taking actions agains spamers?
On 6/09/2016, at 4:44 PM, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Dave Warren wrote: >> They >> can yell and scream all they want about not being a host, but they also >> advertise that "CloudFlare will serve your website's static pages from >> our cache" when your origin server isn't reachable, that falls into my >> definition of being a host, even if only a short term. > > Does that definition of 'being a host' extend to your Chrome, Firefox, and IE > cache as well? There's no host-client relationship in that situation. Quite different from Cloudflare which actively serves stuff to many clients. So they are a host on behalf of their customer. - James___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Cloudflare not taking actions agains spamers?
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 22:04, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: > You're the one who said "CloudFlare will serve your website's static > pages from our cache...that falls into my definition of being a host, > even if it's only short term". So will your browser. /nitpick There is a difference: CloudFlare serves content on behalf of the site owner, my cache does not. What is your point here? ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Cloudflare not taking actions agains spamers?
On 9/5/16 10:04 PM, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: You're the one who said "CloudFlare will serve your website's static pages from our cache...that falls into my definition of being a host, even if it's only short term". So will your browser. /nitpick Not unless his browser cache is accessible to third parties. Anyways, I thought there was a court case back in mid-90s where Compuserve or Prodigy or something was ruled to not be responsible for content flowing through their networks as they are simply the conduit. Wouldn't that apply to something like CloudFlare? I wouldn't think so. They're advertising the content to the Internet via an A or record in DNS. Not the same thing as a transit provider by any means. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Cloudflare not taking actions agains spamers?
Hi I also think a big difference is: Your Browser's cache does not hide the origin of the content. Cloudflare does. To prevent DDOS Attacks to the source of the content, that is their business. Bug this also hides where spamers host their stuff and provides a safe haven to them. At least they could forward all spam complaints they receive to the hoster of the origin on the content. But in my observation, they don't do that. -Benoît Panizzon- -- I m p r o W a r e A G-Leiter Commerce Kunden __ Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00 CH-4133 PrattelnFax +41 61 826 93 01 Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch __ ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Cloudflare not taking actions agains spamers?
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016, at 23:41, Benoit Panizzon wrote: > At least they could forward all spam complaints they receive to the > hoster of the origin on the content. But in my observation, they don't > do that. Truthfully, forwarding complaints is a bit of a messy business as this could easily forward to the abuser themselves. But, this should at least be an option when filing a complaint, as should actually terminating the abusive customer. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
