September 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9551] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

What Rick's friend says is essentially what I believed until about a year ago. BPL made no sense economically, so why would anyone do it? I still don't know the answer to that question, but the fact is that its proponents are treating it seriously and so we have to, too. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Roderick, Rick (aol.com) Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:40 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9506] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL In a message dated 9/25/2003 3:25:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, W5JBP writes: > Jim, this is a false concept. The BPL boys are playing it up, but in reality the farmer Jones are not going to get it. Let us say you have a farm or house five miles out of town. First off, they say that they will pull fiber to the last mile. Then the signal has to be injected, by pass all the pole pigs and amplified every 200 meters. This is a very large investment and the BPL people are just not going to do it. > > I was called by one of the BPL people and he admitted that they were just going to "pick the low hanging fruit." So, the idea that every home in America will have BPL broad band is > a public relations hype. > > 73 > > Jim Haynie, W5JBP _____________________ Interesting point. I had a ham that works for a co-op elec co tell me at a hamfest over the weekend that BPL will be so costly for the power co that it will only be provided in the cities and then quite limited for years due to the costs. What struck me was how unconcerned he was about the issue. He basically said that we (ARRL) were getting concerned over an issue that is not nearly as impacting of the masses as we've led people to believe. I didn't agree with him but thanked him for the info. Take that for what it's worth, as info from a ham that is an engineering mgr for one of the co-ops. 73, K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9548] Honor Roll
by Hobart, Mary K1MMH 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

Good morning, With the creativity and energy of Sue Fagan and Tom Hogerty, Development posted an Honor of clubs, organizations and industry partners who have supported ARRL in 2003, mainly the special Spectrum Defense campaign against BPL. The Honor Roll will be updated every Friday. You can find the BPL Honor Roll page by selecting "Donate to ARRL" on the main page and selecting Development Overview from the drop down menu. An email is being sent to all clubs today to annouce this new web page, thank those organizations that have contributed or are currently working on their donation, and to encourage others to join the effort against BPL. 73, Mary K1MMH

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9547] January 2004 Board Meeting
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

It's still more than three months away, but of course we have to sign a contract for the hotel space for the January Board Meeting and some of you are beginning to think about airline reservations. President Haynie has asked me to advise you that in accordance with Bylaw 25, the 2004 Annual Meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors will be held in the vicinity of Newington beginning on Friday morning, January 16. We plan to hold the meeting at the Hartford/Windsor Airport Marriott, the site of our most recent three meetings. David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9546] Re: And The Word From QSL.NET
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

Henry: As I noted in an earlier response, we have found someone at Earthlink who is willing to talk to us and appears more than willing to work together to resolve the situation. One of the problems was getting to such a person in the Earthlink beaucracy. But now that we have, I'm hoping we can resolve the situation. 73, Barry, N1VXY -----Original Message----- From: Leggette, Henry (Vice Dir, Delta) Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:48 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9544] Re: And The Word From QSL.NET Hello ALL, After looking over the situation, I think it is time to sit down to the table with Earthlink and talk this thing out. It appears to be a lot of finger pointing. My experience has been over the years when there is a problem between two vendors or companies, no one wants to accept responsibility. This is more important when you have a demarcation as Earthlink appears to have with ARRL. Barry, I am not saying you are not doing a great job. However, it will be differant when they sit across the table and talk about the situation. This way you will have a person that has committed to working with you or us on this problem. 73, Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: Shelley, Barry, <mailto:bshelley@arrl.org> N1VXY To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:02 AM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9543] Re: And The Word From QSL.NET While I have no way to verify the validity of the sender, given this note from Art, I thought I would pass it along. I have talked to Al Waller (I think that's his last name) several times over the years and know he is a fanatic spam fighter. We actually got a proposal from him to run arrl.net when we were first outsourcing it. I don't have my notes but I think his proposal was in the $45-$50,000 range at the time. This was about double the cost we finally got from the company in Indiana. Maybe the additional costs were for spam filtering!!! This note comes from someone who claims to be a qth.net sys admin. Seems they're having trouble getting Earthlink to accept mail from their listserver for some reason. Barry >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim" <listowner(a)mailman.qth.net> >To: <N1VXY(a)arrl.net> >Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 12:16 AM >Subject: Earthlink >> Welcome to the club. Earthlink has been delaying mail from our email >listserver for months. I've spent hours with them on the phone and they >just don't care, they're going ahead full steam with their heads down. >> >> If you are ever able to contact someone that can help you, please let me >know. We have over 1500 Earthlink subscribers and several hundred more >subscribers that use other ISPs, that use Earthlink mail servers >(sprintmail, netcom, jps, etc.) >> >> Good luck. >> >> >> Tim >> System Admin >> QTH.NET -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 8:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9538] Re: And The Word From QSL.NET If that were the case (and it isn't, because members with arrl.net aliases who don't advertise them don't receive much if any spam) that wouldn't cause Earthlink any problems. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Goddard, Art (Dir, SW) Sent: Tue 9/30/2003 12:08 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9536] And The Word From QSL.NET And here is QSL.net taking the high ground - at least higher than ARRL... 73, Art W6XD ---------------------------------------------------------------- >To: qsl-net(a)mailman.qth.net >From: "Alan L. Waller" <k3tkj(a)qsl.net> >Subject: [QSL-Net] ARRL/Earthlink >Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:55:55 -0400 > >Hi Ken and others.... > >Thanks for your input on the QSL/ARRL/QTH spamming thread. > >Here's the basic problem with ARRL and QSL, you or a spammer can download >the FCC database of active US >calls..... Append @arrl.net or @qsl.net to this list and you are >GUARANTEED to have every user on both systems since we both only allow the >ham call as the mail address. BTW this works for every country database >and is especially important at QSL because of the large number of non-US users. > >VERY little Spam today comes through open relays, these have been hammered >into submission by the blackhole lists and other than a few in the Far >East they are under reasonable control and monitored by several sites. The >majority of Spam is relayed through OPEN PROXY SERVERS, as they are >numerous, are usually associated with big bandwidth and are totally >transparent to a Spammer. You cannot trace Spam through OPS's as there is >no logging and even if there was the owner of the OPS does not even know >it is happening. > >The ARRL's position seems to be that it is not their problem to do any >filtering for Spam at the server. > >QTH lists are double opt-in so as long as a spammer does not subscribe his >drivel will bounce to the list owner. The only reason we Spam filter QTH >is to give a bit of relief to the list owners. It is not needed to keep >the lists Spam free. > >QSL has always had server Spam filtering and will always do so. I won't >publically describe how this is done, although for the interested I will >give you the details off list. QSL, in it's Acceptable USE Policy, >emphasizes the fact that QSL mail has no guarantees of delivery or >suitability. I tell everyone who asks...if the mail is that important to >you DO NOT use QSL. I filter spam heavily, I block abusers instantly and >the system is not perfect. Occasionally innocents users are blocked but >99.9% of the messages blocked are Spam. The number of messages rejected >daily is 6 digits so it does work. > > >73, Al

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9544] Re: And The Word From QSL.NET
by Henry R. Leggette 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

[ARRL-ODV:9536] And The Word From QSL.NETHello ALL, After looking over the situation, I think it is time to sit down to the table with Earthlink and talk this thing out. It appears to be a lot of finger pointing. My experience has been over the years when there is a problem between two vendors or companies, no one wants to accept responsibility. This is more important when you have a demarcation as Earthlink appears to have with ARRL. Barry, I am not saying you are not doing a great job. However, it will be differant when they sit across the table and talk about the situation. This way you will have a person that has committed to working with you or us on this problem. 73, Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: Shelley, Barry, N1VXY To: arrl-odv Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:02 AM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9543] Re: And The Word From QSL.NET While I have no way to verify the validity of the sender, given this note from Art, I thought I would pass it along. I have talked to Al Waller (I think that's his last name) several times over the years and know he is a fanatic spam fighter. We actually got a proposal from him to run arrl.net when we were first outsourcing it. I don't have my notes but I think his proposal was in the $45-$50,000 range at the time. This was about double the cost we finally got from the company in Indiana. Maybe the additional costs were for spam filtering!!! This note comes from someone who claims to be a qth.net sys admin. Seems they're having trouble getting Earthlink to accept mail from their listserver for some reason. Barry >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim" <listowner(a)mailman.qth.net> >To: <N1VXY(a)arrl.net> >Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 12:16 AM >Subject: Earthlink >> Welcome to the club. Earthlink has been delaying mail from our email >listserver for months. I've spent hours with them on the phone and they >just don't care, they're going ahead full steam with their heads down. >> >> If you are ever able to contact someone that can help you, please let me >know. We have over 1500 Earthlink subscribers and several hundred more >subscribers that use other ISPs, that use Earthlink mail servers >(sprintmail, netcom, jps, etc.) >> >> Good luck. >> >> >> Tim >> System Admin >> QTH.NET -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 8:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9538] Re: And The Word From QSL.NET If that were the case (and it isn't, because members with arrl.net aliases who don't advertise them don't receive much if any spam) that wouldn't cause Earthlink any problems. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Goddard, Art (Dir, SW) Sent: Tue 9/30/2003 12:08 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9536] And The Word From QSL.NET And here is QSL.net taking the high ground - at least higher than ARRL... 73, Art W6XD ---------------------------------------------------------------- >To: qsl-net(a)mailman.qth.net >From: "Alan L. Waller" <k3tkj(a)qsl.net> >Subject: [QSL-Net] ARRL/Earthlink >Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:55:55 -0400 > >Hi Ken and others.... > >Thanks for your input on the QSL/ARRL/QTH spamming thread. > >Here's the basic problem with ARRL and QSL, you or a spammer can download >the FCC database of active US >calls..... Append @arrl.net or @qsl.net to this list and you are >GUARANTEED to have every user on both systems since we both only allow the >ham call as the mail address. BTW this works for every country database >and is especially important at QSL because of the large number of non-US users. > >VERY little Spam today comes through open relays, these have been hammered >into submission by the blackhole lists and other than a few in the Far >East they are under reasonable control and monitored by several sites. The >majority of Spam is relayed through OPEN PROXY SERVERS, as they are >numerous, are usually associated with big bandwidth and are totally >transparent to a Spammer. You cannot trace Spam through OPS's as there is >no logging and even if there was the owner of the OPS does not even know >it is happening. > >The ARRL's position seems to be that it is not their problem to do any >filtering for Spam at the server. > >QTH lists are double opt-in so as long as a spammer does not subscribe his >drivel will bounce to the list owner. The only reason we Spam filter QTH >is to give a bit of relief to the list owners. It is not needed to keep >the lists Spam free. > >QSL has always had server Spam filtering and will always do so. I won't >publically describe how this is done, although for the interested I will >give you the details off list. QSL, in it's Acceptable USE Policy, >emphasizes the fact that QSL mail has no guarantees of delivery or >suitability. I tell everyone who asks...if the mail is that important to >you DO NOT use QSL. I filter spam heavily, I block abusers instantly and >the system is not perfect. Occasionally innocents users are blocked but >99.9% of the messages blocked are Spam. The number of messages rejected >daily is 6 digits so it does work. > > >73, Al

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9543] Re: And The Word From QSL.NET
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

While I have no way to verify the validity of the sender, given this note from Art, I thought I would pass it along. I have talked to Al Waller (I think that's his last name) several times over the years and know he is a fanatic spam fighter. We actually got a proposal from him to run arrl.net when we were first outsourcing it. I don't have my notes but I think his proposal was in the $45-$50,000 range at the time. This was about double the cost we finally got from the company in Indiana. Maybe the additional costs were for spam filtering!!! This note comes from someone who claims to be a qth.net sys admin. Seems they're having trouble getting Earthlink to accept mail from their listserver for some reason. Barry >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim" <listowner(a)mailman.qth.net> >To: <N1VXY(a)arrl.net> >Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 12:16 AM >Subject: Earthlink >> Welcome to the club. Earthlink has been delaying mail from our email >listserver for months. I've spent hours with them on the phone and they >just don't care, they're going ahead full steam with their heads down. >> >> If you are ever able to contact someone that can help you, please let me >know. We have over 1500 Earthlink subscribers and several hundred more >subscribers that use other ISPs, that use Earthlink mail servers >(sprintmail, netcom, jps, etc.) >> >> Good luck. >> >> >> Tim >> System Admin >> QTH.NET -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 8:37 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9538] Re: And The Word From QSL.NET If that were the case (and it isn't, because members with arrl.net aliases who don't advertise them don't receive much if any spam) that wouldn't cause Earthlink any problems. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Goddard, Art (Dir, SW) Sent: Tue 9/30/2003 12:08 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9536] And The Word From QSL.NET And here is QSL.net taking the high ground - at least higher than ARRL... 73, Art W6XD ---------------------------------------------------------------- >To: qsl-net(a)mailman.qth.net >From: "Alan L. Waller" <k3tkj(a)qsl.net> >Subject: [QSL-Net] ARRL/Earthlink >Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:55:55 -0400 > >Hi Ken and others.... > >Thanks for your input on the QSL/ARRL/QTH spamming thread. > >Here's the basic problem with ARRL and QSL, you or a spammer can download >the FCC database of active US >calls..... Append @arrl.net or @qsl.net to this list and you are >GUARANTEED to have every user on both systems since we both only allow the >ham call as the mail address. BTW this works for every country database >and is especially important at QSL because of the large number of non-US users. > >VERY little Spam today comes through open relays, these have been hammered >into submission by the blackhole lists and other than a few in the Far >East they are under reasonable control and monitored by several sites. The >majority of Spam is relayed through OPEN PROXY SERVERS, as they are >numerous, are usually associated with big bandwidth and are totally >transparent to a Spammer. You cannot trace Spam through OPS's as there is >no logging and even if there was the owner of the OPS does not even know >it is happening. > >The ARRL's position seems to be that it is not their problem to do any >filtering for Spam at the server. > >QTH lists are double opt-in so as long as a spammer does not subscribe his >drivel will bounce to the list owner. The only reason we Spam filter QTH >is to give a bit of relief to the list owners. It is not needed to keep >the lists Spam free. > >QSL has always had server Spam filtering and will always do so. I won't >publically describe how this is done, although for the interested I will >give you the details off list. QSL, in it's Acceptable USE Policy, >emphasizes the fact that QSL mail has no guarantees of delivery or >suitability. I tell everyone who asks...if the mail is that important to >you DO NOT use QSL. I filter spam heavily, I block abusers instantly and >the system is not perfect. Occasionally innocents users are blocked but >99.9% of the messages blocked are Spam. The number of messages rejected >daily is 6 digits so it does work. > > >73, Al

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9542] Re: Earthlink
by Shelley, Barry, N1VXY 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

Actually Art, we've received several different versions of the issue from a variety of Earthlink staff, mostly the technical support people. This is just one of the versions. I know this because I've personally talked to their technical people several times over the past couple of weeks. I was able to finally talk to a live human being late yesterday afternoon who seemed very willing to discuss the issue and work together to solve the problem. He happens to be a Radio Amateur in the office of the CEO of Earthlink. I had written the CEO about the problem. His version, and the one he's working with us to resolve, has apparently little to do with spam, per se. He claims, after reviewing their internal procedures, that there is a high percentage of e-mail coming into Earthlink from arrl.net that contains either non-existent or closed account addresses. On the surface, this would indicate that a spammer is at work just e-mailing to any combination of letters/numbers (called a "dictionary attack") hoping to hit some real addresses at Earthlink. The Earthlink process for "null routing" (basically sending all mail from an offending domain into the bit bucket) is completely automated, untouched by human hands. If the volume of mail to closed accounts as a percentage of the total of all the mail, gets above a certain limit, their process of delaying mail (null routing) kicks in. What may be happening here is that a percentage of our members have switched their home e-mail addresses but failed to tell us. While most are active Radio Amateurs and it doesn't seem likely, this is the reason I'm being given at this point. If you are a conspiracy theorist (which I am not), you might believe that a spammer is "spoofing" the arrl.net domain in the "from" address of the messages to Earthlink and, at the same time, using a dictionary attack which would create the same situation. Either way, our new Earthlink contact is willing to work with us to try and resolve the problem. We will be trying to match our address list with their valid accounts and will purge any arrl.net account that is being forwarded to a closed or nonexistent Earthlink account. If what we are being told is true, this should resolve the problem. Certainly no one likes to get spam. Although, I am a believer in economics and think that, if no one was making money off this junk, no one would be doing it. But I digress. The real culprits are not Earthlink or arrl.net but the ISPs all over the world that allow their sites to be used as entry points for this junk. That's why blackhole lists exist although they are problematic as well. But the perception is that whoever's domain is in the address is responsible for getting rid of the spam. It doesn't matter that the individual has posted his or her e-mail address all over the Internet for anyone to send things to, valid mail or junk. The perception is that its not the individual's problem. No one wants to hear that. Of course, arrl.net could install spam filtering (at a cost which, to this point, has been deemed too expensive). Earthlink spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on it, probably in the millions. As Jay pointed out in a recent note, there is a small sub committee of A&F looking at this right now and will be making a recommendation. The bottom line is that it will probably cost money and we will have to make the decision if this is important enough to have resources applied to it, particularly in light of our recent strategic planning session that identified new strategies that will also require resources. It may be that we have to charge the members for it. That remains to be seen. If I can provide any more information, please let me know. 73, Barry, N1VXY -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 8:34 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9537] Re: Earthlink Well, this is a different story than the one Barry was told this afternoon by an assistant to the Earthlink President. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Goddard, Art (Dir, SW) Sent: Tue 9/30/2003 12:04 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9535] Earthlink Here is the reply of an Earthlink Network Abuse Engineer to one of our Members (k6rix(a)arrl.net) In the e-mail, the engineer says the mail our Member received from ARRL contains misrepresentations and false assertions. But the ARRL Member can rely on Earthlink to get the truth. Neat, huh? 73, Art W6XD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- >Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:39:32 -0400 (EDT) >From: abuse(a)abuse.earthlink.net >To: k6rix(a)arrl.net >Subject: Issue 030924-23958246 > >We apologize for the confusion caused by the mail you may have >received from arrl.net. In this mail they have made several >misrepresentations, such as the statement that EarthLink is >blocking all mail from arrl.net. This is not the case. Neither >is their assertion that this department claimed they were an open >relay. > >In truth, arrl.net's servers have periodically triggered >automated "self-defense" mechanisms on our mail servers. These >temporary blocks are triggered not simply by high volumes of >unsolicited e-mail, but disproportionately high ratios of spam to >legitimate mail. > >In the case of arrl.net, this is due to the fact that the >administrators of arrl.net have chosen to take a completely hands >off position in the fight against spam, doing nothing to prevent >the unsolicited e-mail that is originally addressed to users in >that domain from being propagated throughout the rest of the >Internet. > >While the EarthLink Abuse department does not maintain this >particular process and has no control over it, we have explained, >in great depth and detail, the cause of the problem and what >steps can be taken to prevent these blocks in the future. > >In summary, the ability to prevent these temporary blocks from >being triggered lies completely within the control of arrl.net. >Further questions about how they choose to run their services and >the resulting issues should be referred directly to ><bshelley(a)arrl.org> and/or <bgmiller(a)nframe.com>, who make the >decisions about the administration of arrl.net's servers. > >Regards, > >Louis Rush >EarthLink Network Abuse Engineer >abuse(a)abuse.earthlink.net > http://www.earthlink.net/about/policies/ >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9541] Re: Earthlink
by Joel Harrison 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

I wonder what a "network abuse engineer" designs??? Network abuse? Joel -----Original Message----- From: Art Goddard [mailto:w6xd@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 6:05 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9535] Earthlink Here is the reply of an Earthlink Network Abuse Engineer to one of our Members (k6rix(a)arrl.net) In the e-mail, the engineer says the mail our Member received from ARRL contains misrepresentations and false assertions. But the ARRL Member can rely on Earthlink to get the truth. Neat, huh? 73, Art W6XD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- >Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:39:32 -0400 (EDT) >From: abuse(a)abuse.earthlink.net >To: k6rix(a)arrl.net >Subject: Issue 030924-23958246 > >We apologize for the confusion caused by the mail you may have >received from arrl.net. In this mail they have made several >misrepresentations, such as the statement that EarthLink is >blocking all mail from arrl.net. This is not the case. Neither >is their assertion that this department claimed they were an open >relay. > >In truth, arrl.net's servers have periodically triggered >automated "self-defense" mechanisms on our mail servers. These >temporary blocks are triggered not simply by high volumes of >unsolicited e-mail, but disproportionately high ratios of spam to >legitimate mail. > >In the case of arrl.net, this is due to the fact that the >administrators of arrl.net have chosen to take a completely hands >off position in the fight against spam, doing nothing to prevent >the unsolicited e-mail that is originally addressed to users in >that domain from being propagated throughout the rest of the >Internet. > >While the EarthLink Abuse department does not maintain this >particular process and has no control over it, we have explained, >in great depth and detail, the cause of the problem and what >steps can be taken to prevent these blocks in the future. > >In summary, the ability to prevent these temporary blocks from >being triggered lies completely within the control of arrl.net. >Further questions about how they choose to run their services and >the resulting issues should be referred directly to ><bshelley(a)arrl.org> and/or <bgmiller(a)nframe.com>, who make the >decisions about the administration of arrl.net's servers. > >Regards, > >Louis Rush >EarthLink Network Abuse Engineer >abuse(a)abuse.earthlink.net >http://www.earthlink.net/about/policies/ >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9539] Re: And The Word From QSL.NET
by Andy Oppel 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

My fear is that Earthlink is categorizing all of our bulletins as spam. Since each one has many addressees and since the recipient didn't specifically request each particular bulletin (a reply to a note they sent us arrl.net is not included), it would be easy for an automated spam filter to flag them all as spam. -- Andy Oppel At 08:36 PM 9/29/2003 -0400, you wrote: >If that were the case (and it isn't, because members with arrl.net aliases >who don't advertise them don't receive much if any spam) that wouldn't >cause Earthlink any problems. > >Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Goddard, Art (Dir, SW) >Sent: Tue 9/30/2003 12:08 AM >To: arrl-odv >Cc: >Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9536] And The Word From QSL.NET > >And here is QSL.net taking the high ground - at least higher than ARRL... > >73, Art W6XD > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > > >To: qsl-net(a)mailman.qth.net > >From: "Alan L. Waller" <k3tkj(a)qsl.net> > >Subject: [QSL-Net] ARRL/Earthlink > >Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:55:55 -0400 > > > >Hi Ken and others.... > > > >Thanks for your input on the QSL/ARRL/QTH spamming thread. > > > >Here's the basic problem with ARRL and QSL, you or a spammer can download > >the FCC database of active US > >calls..... Append @arrl.net or @qsl.net to this list and you are > >GUARANTEED to have every user on both systems since we both only allow the > >ham call as the mail address. BTW this works for every country database > >and is especially important at QSL because of the large number of non-US >users. > > > >VERY little Spam today comes through open relays, these have been hammered > >into submission by the blackhole lists and other than a few in the Far > >East they are under reasonable control and monitored by several sites. The > >majority of Spam is relayed through OPEN PROXY SERVERS, as they are > >numerous, are usually associated with big bandwidth and are totally > >transparent to a Spammer. You cannot trace Spam through OPS's as there is > >no logging and even if there was the owner of the OPS does not even know > >it is happening. > > > >The ARRL's position seems to be that it is not their problem to do any > >filtering for Spam at the server. > > > >QTH lists are double opt-in so as long as a spammer does not subscribe his > >drivel will bounce to the list owner. The only reason we Spam filter QTH > >is to give a bit of relief to the list owners. It is not needed to keep > >the lists Spam free. > > > >QSL has always had server Spam filtering and will always do so. I won't > >publically describe how this is done, although for the interested I will > >give you the details off list. QSL, in it's Acceptable USE Policy, > >emphasizes the fact that QSL mail has no guarantees of delivery or > >suitability. I tell everyone who asks...if the mail is that important to > >you DO NOT use QSL. I filter spam heavily, I block abusers instantly and > >the system is not perfect. Occasionally innocents users are blocked but > >99.9% of the messages blocked are Spam. The number of messages rejected > >daily is 6 digits so it does work. > > > > > >73, Al > Andy Oppel andy(a)andyoppel.com

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9538] Re: And The Word From QSL.NET
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

If that were the case (and it isn't, because members with arrl.net aliases who don't advertise them don't receive much if any spam) that wouldn't cause Earthlink any problems. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Goddard, Art (Dir, SW) Sent: Tue 9/30/2003 12:08 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9536] And The Word From QSL.NET And here is QSL.net taking the high ground - at least higher than ARRL... 73, Art W6XD ---------------------------------------------------------------- >To: qsl-net(a)mailman.qth.net >From: "Alan L. Waller" <k3tkj(a)qsl.net> >Subject: [QSL-Net] ARRL/Earthlink >Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:55:55 -0400 > >Hi Ken and others.... > >Thanks for your input on the QSL/ARRL/QTH spamming thread. > >Here's the basic problem with ARRL and QSL, you or a spammer can download >the FCC database of active US >calls..... Append @arrl.net or @qsl.net to this list and you are >GUARANTEED to have every user on both systems since we both only allow the >ham call as the mail address. BTW this works for every country database >and is especially important at QSL because of the large number of non-US users. > >VERY little Spam today comes through open relays, these have been hammered >into submission by the blackhole lists and other than a few in the Far >East they are under reasonable control and monitored by several sites. The >majority of Spam is relayed through OPEN PROXY SERVERS, as they are >numerous, are usually associated with big bandwidth and are totally >transparent to a Spammer. You cannot trace Spam through OPS's as there is >no logging and even if there was the owner of the OPS does not even know >it is happening. > >The ARRL's position seems to be that it is not their problem to do any >filtering for Spam at the server. > >QTH lists are double opt-in so as long as a spammer does not subscribe his >drivel will bounce to the list owner. The only reason we Spam filter QTH >is to give a bit of relief to the list owners. It is not needed to keep >the lists Spam free. > >QSL has always had server Spam filtering and will always do so. I won't >publically describe how this is done, although for the interested I will >give you the details off list. QSL, in it's Acceptable USE Policy, >emphasizes the fact that QSL mail has no guarantees of delivery or >suitability. I tell everyone who asks...if the mail is that important to >you DO NOT use QSL. I filter spam heavily, I block abusers instantly and >the system is not perfect. Occasionally innocents users are blocked but >99.9% of the messages blocked are Spam. The number of messages rejected >daily is 6 digits so it does work. > > >73, Al

1 0