Re: This hostmaster should be PUNISHED - TCP-IP
This is a discussion on Re: This hostmaster should be PUNISHED - TCP-IP ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> I submit that the hostmaster of "aereolineas.com.ar." is a _far_ better
> candidate.
Hehe, surely it is their right to provide appalling service to would be
customers? Or ...
-
Re: This hostmaster should be PUNISHED
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> I submit that the hostmaster of "aereolineas.com.ar." is a _far_ better
> candidate.
Hehe, surely it is their right to provide appalling service to would be
customers? Or did I miss a subtlety?
According the the maths department at BYU
abuse@thrunet.com
should have been getting a talking to over netpussies.com spam as well,
at least last month, over spam being relayed. I've seen anything yet to
point to why we think netpussies.com have anything to do with any of
this, but then no one posted extracts of the spam. Nothing makes me
think they are anything but what their whois entry claims.
Does anyone care if an MX points to an A record with 127.0.0.1, only
broken MTAs would do anything but complain about it looping back to
themselves.
Worries about spammers belong in other forums.
MTA's that can't handle a loop back to themselves gracefully should have
a bug report filed (assuming your running the latest version and have it
correctly configured), since it could be used for malicious purposes
even if we decided people shouldn't use 127.0.0.1 for MX records for
some reason, we couldn't enforce it by fiddling with BIND.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE/InElGFXfHI9FVgYRAqJkAJ9jLtffmB7zs1oMxR2QxmYOhVtj8A CePYQ/
kWVjIDIsnlktsbGBHa2JWEA=
=OMaP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
Re: This hostmaster should be PUNISHED
JdeBP> I submit that the hostmaster of "aereolineas.com.ar." is a
JdeBP> _far_ better candidate.
SW> Hehe, surely it is their right to provide appalling service
SW> to would be customers? Or did I miss a subtlety?
I'm not sure. You proceed to talk, in relation to other domain names, about
"MX" resource record sets and loop prevention in SMTP Relay clients; but the
problem with "aereolineas.com.ar." is not mail-specific and does not lie in
what its hostmaster has done with the "MX" resource records, which is why I
think that he/she is a far better candidate.
Try an "A" query for "aereolineas.com.ar." and watch the logs of your proxy
DNS server to see what it does. (-:
(Different softwares do different things. With at least one forwarding proxy
DNS server software, for best^H^H^H^Hworst results one also needs to have
populated the cache by issuing an "NS" query beforehand.)
-
Re: This hostmaster should be PUNISHED
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:16:40 +0100, Simon Waters
wrote:
>> I submit that the hostmaster of "aereolineas.com.ar." is a _far_ better
>> candidate.
>Hehe, surely it is their right to provide appalling service to would be
>customers? Or did I miss a subtlety?
Sorry, where did this thread originate? Another newsgroup? A
mailing-list? If so, which one?
--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@ANTISPAM.gont.com.ar
[To send a personal reply, please remove the ANTISPAM tag]
-
Re: This hostmaster should be PUNISHED
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:14:36 -0300,
Fernando Gont wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 13:16:40 +0100, Simon Waters
> wrote:
>
>>> I submit that the hostmaster of "aereolineas.com.ar." is a _far_ better
>>> candidate.
>>Hehe, surely it is their right to provide appalling service to would be
>>customers? Or did I miss a subtlety?
>
>Sorry, where did this thread originate? Another newsgroup? A
>mailing-list? If so, which one?
>
comp.protocols.dns.bind.
It is a nice feature of slrn to be able to pull up the rest of the thread from
the news server.
Villy
Original message below.
> From monday11@hotmail.com Wed Jul 30 14:58:51 2003
> Path: news.nl.uu.net!anewscache00.ams.ops.eu.uu.net!bnew sspool00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewsinpeer00.bru.ops.e u.uu.net!emea.uu.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub .sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!new s.webusenet.com!news.isc.org!nobody
> From: monday11@hotmail.com (binaya)
> Newsgroups: comp.protocols.dns.bind
> Subject: This hostmaster should be PUNISHED
> Date: 23 Jul 2003 00:41:50 -0700
> Organization: none
> Lines: 39
> Sender: news@isc.org
> Approved: usenet@isc.org
> Message-ID:
> NNTP-Posting-Host: news.isc.org
> X-Trace: sf1.isc.org 1058986593 85137 204.152.184.108 (23 Jul 2003 18:56:33 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@isc.org
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:56:33 +0000 (UTC)
> Return-Path:
> X-Original-Message-ID: <1cd2b707.0307222044.7357118e@posting.google.com>
> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 202.52.251.142
> Errors-To: bind-users-bounce@isc.org
>
> Dear all,
>
> SPAM mails are arriving from a domain netpussies.com.I can block
> it but the STUPID hostmaster of techhosting.net ( whom I think should
> be kicked off immediately from his job) has registered it as below .
>
> Please note its MX.
>
>
>
> % dig netpussies.com mx
>
> ; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> netpussies.com mx
> ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
> ;; got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2
> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 4
> ;; QUERY SECTION:
> ;; netpussies.com, type = MX, class = IN
>
> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> netpussies.com. 8h57m41s IN MX 20 mx2.netpussies.com.
> netpussies.com. 8h57m41s IN MX 10 mx1.netpussies.com.
>
> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> netpussies.com. 8h57m36s IN NS ns1.techhosting.net.
> netpussies.com. 8h57m36s IN NS ns2.techhosting.net.
>
> ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> mx2.netpussies.com. 8h57m49s IN A 127.0.0.1
> mx1.netpussies.com. 8h57m42s IN A 127.0.0.1
> ns1.techhosting.net. 1d23h58m28s IN A 209.81.54.4
> ns2.techhosting.net. 1d23h58m28s IN A 216.218.223.132
>
> ;; Total query time: 2 msec
> ;; FROM: makalu.mos.com.np to SERVER: default -- 202.52.255.3
> ;; WHEN: Wed Jul 23 10:20:50 2003
> ;; MSG SIZE sent: 32 rcvd: 187
>
>
>
