IL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 1:33 PM
> To: Paul Kelly :: Blacknight
> Cc: Frank Bulk; 'Peter Serwe'; Skywing; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: McColo and SPAM
>
> What's very interesting to me is the very rhythmic peaks-and-valleys
> you show... Se
x27;Peter Serwe'; Skywing
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: McColo and SPAM
We experienced exactly no decrease with the McColo shut down a few
weeks
back, even though we receive 2M+ messages per day. It's interesting
that
each service provider's spam populations are as different as
Paul,
I read Gregg Keizer's piece in CW where FireEye's Fengmin Gong is quoted
as "We have registered a couple hundred domains," Gong said, "but we
made the decision that we cannot afford to spend so much money to keep
registering so many [domain] names."
Now interposing on the Srizbi system
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Paul Kelly :: Blacknight
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We saw a dramatic decrease. Attached is our dnsbl mirror in .ie, it
> mirrors spamhaus amoungst other things.
>
McColo was just an exercise in "managing" cyber cri
nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: McColo and SPAM
We experienced exactly no decrease with the McColo shut down a few weeks
back, even though we receive 2M+ messages per day. It's interesting that
each service provider's spam populations are as different as they are. Some
experienced gigantic
7;s not like we have
just one domain.
I know MessageLabs examines spam rates per industry type.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Peter Serwe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:57 PM
To: Skywing
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: McColo and SPAM
Certainly, I have se
Seen behind my ISP (gmx.de),
I get almost no spam. Looking into the spam folder I
see some 10% of what I used to see.
On the other other hand when they closed I got an
alarm for my homepage. I got so many wordbooks on
my ssh that they exceeded my traffic limit.
I had to move my sshd to IPv6 only
Friday, December 05, 2008 4:03 PM
To: Revolver Onslaught; nanog
Subject: RE: McColo and SPAM
We have not seen any decrease. In the last 24 hours we have seen 3.5
million messages blocked.
-Mike
-Original Message-
From: Revolver Onslaught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, Decem
We have not seen any decrease. In the last 24 hours we have seen 3.5
million messages blocked.
-Mike
-Original Message-
From: Revolver Onslaught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:14 PM
To: nanog
Subject: McColo and SPAM
Hello,
Since McColo closed, we noticed
nd didn't
> originate spam directly, at least primarily, according to my understanding.
>
> - S
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Serwe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:49 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: McColo and SPAM
>
On Dec 5, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Skywing wrote:
McColo hosted the command and control servers for spam botnets and
didn't originate spam directly, at least primarily, according to my
understanding.
- S
That is correct. Srizbi and Rustok, primarily.
--
bk
bject: Re: McColo and SPAM
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:34 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:14:08 +0100
> From: Revolver Onslaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: McColo and SPAM
> To: nanog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:34 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:14:08 +0100
> From: Revolver Onslaught <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: McColo and SPAM
> To: nanog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
Sorry, and we have the premium spam add-on too.
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wyble [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:28 PM
To: Dave Larter
Cc: Revolver Onslaught; nanog
Subject: Re: McColo and SPAM
Is that an off the shelf tool or custom built?
, December 05, 2008 2:28 PM
To: Dave Larter
Cc: Revolver Onslaught; nanog
Subject: Re: McColo and SPAM
Is that an off the shelf tool or custom built?
05, 2008 2:14 PM
> To: nanog
> Subject: McColo and SPAM
>
> Hello,
>
> Since McColo closed, we noticed the spam was far more intensive than
> before.
>
> However, it seems the amount of spam is similar than than before.
&g
: NANOG list
Subject: Re: McColo and SPAM
Jeff Shultz wrote
>>
> I've been getting an fair number of e-mails (up from zero) from
> customers asking about spam they are getting with their e-mail address
> being in the From: address. I know that this has always been
> happening, I&#
Is that an off the shelf tool or custom built?
Jeff Shultz wrote
I've been getting an fair number of e-mails (up from zero) from
customers asking about spam they are getting with their e-mail address
being in the From: address. I know that this has always been
happening, I'm just wondering if it's been buried under the McColo
stuff so th
8 2:14 PM
> To: nanog
> Subject: McColo and SPAM
>
> Hello,
>
> Since McColo closed, we noticed the spam was far more intensive than
> before.
>
> However, it seems the amount of spam is similar than than before.
>
> Do you feel the same ?
>
> Many thanks,
> RO
>
>
>
>
>
It is still way down for me, see attached.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Revolver Onslaught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:14 PM
To: nanog
Subject: McColo and SPAM
Hello,
Since McColo closed, we noticed the spam was far more intensive than
before
Revolver Onslaught wrote:
Hello,
Since McColo closed, we noticed the spam was far more intensive than before.
However, it seems the amount of spam is similar than than before.
Do you feel the same ?
Many thanks,
RO
I've been getting an fair number of e-mails (up from zero) from
customers
Hello,
Since McColo closed, we noticed the spam was far more intensive than before.
However, it seems the amount of spam is similar than than before.
Do you feel the same ?
Many thanks,
RO
23 matches
Mail list logo
