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

[ARRL-ODV:9537] Re: Earthlink
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

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:9536] And The Word From QSL.NET
by Art Goddard 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

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:9535] Earthlink
by Art Goddard 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

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:9534] Re: FW: BPL article in Sunday, Sept. 28 "Morning Call" (Allentown, PA)
by Kay Craigie 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

The locals say that Alan Richenbacher, a PPL engineer who is quoted in the article sniffing at hams' concerns, used to be K3PII. Letters are being written to the newspaper from area hams, including K2QM, a professor of physics at Princeton. Another ham has written to the United Power Line Council asking them to substantiate their claim that the ARRL is exaggerating the threat posed by BPL as a money-making gimmick. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9533] FW: BPL article in Sunday, Sept. 28 "Morning Call" (Allentown, PA)
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 29 Sep '03

29 Sep '03

The reporter apologizes for getting the name of the organization wrong but says it's difficult to find on our Web site (for some reason it didn't occur to him to use "ARRL -- the National Association for Amateur Radio"). Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9532] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by Joel Harrison 28 Sep '03

28 Sep '03

Rick, It wasn't a turn toward Jay that led me to believe you guys liked each other.....it was when you kissed him on the cheek. Joel -----Original Message----- From: K5ur(a)aol.com [mailto:K5ur@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 6:41 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9526] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL In a message dated 9/26/2003 6:53:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: > To a real quiet location, W8JI?, they would probably be > about +10db Pooie! Real world? come out here to 5 land and try that on 160, where W8JI hangs. Heck, I'm deaf in my right ear because of trying to pull new ones out of the noise floor on 80/160 for 35 years as it is. (Hey, ever wonder why I always turn my left ear, my good one, towards you? And ya'll just thought Bellows and I liked each other). Anyway, seriously, the problem is compounded from the perspective of comparing problems with the EAST coast versus the true world of K5UR and W0CP noise floors, and that is scary. 73, K5UR... deaf in one ear

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9531] FW: : Earthlink and arrl.net mail
by Joel Harrison 28 Sep '03

28 Sep '03

Congratulations to all. I had not realized it, but according to the email below we have exceeded 230,000 members. I must pay more attention to membership numbers in the future. 73 Joel W5ZN -----Original Message----- From: wa5ybc [mailto:wa5ybc@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 8:07 PM To: w6rod(a)arrl.net; wa6wzo(a)arrl.net; n3kn(a)arrl.net; w5zn(a)arrl.net; w5jbp(a)arrl.net; abuse(a)abuse.earthlink.net Subject: : Earthlink and arrl.net mail I am a member a ARRL and been a member for over 20 yrs . Earthlink, do not want me to rethink your Service, because if I have to pick web Service are ARRL .I will keep my ARRL and take out your sevice. It will not be Earthlink DSL with ARRL saiding that 2600 member will not get ARRL E-MAIL . YOU NEED TO DO THE MAT ( 2600 x $ 42.00 = $109200.00 PER MONTH WIIL BE A LOT OF MONEY ) You need to rethink ARRL member forwarded system . Arrl has over 230,000 Hams as member can you turn down All that with out doing a lots think about it. If earthlink will not work this out, look like AOL is going in soon. I all so sending to all on my E-mail list ( HAMS) so they will not get Earthlink AS long as we will not get any E-MAIL forward to them.I hope Earthlink works this out soon . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shelly, Barry, N1VXY" <bshelley(a)arrl.org> To: <wa5ybc(a)earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:16 PM Subject: Earthlink and arrl.net mail > We are sending this to you because you are an ARRL member who is > having e-mail forwarded through the arrl.net system to an e-mail > address at Earthlink. > > The following is the draft of a story that is being posted today to > the ARRL web site. As an Earthlink subscriber, it affects you > directly as Earthlink will no longer accept e-mail traffic from > arrl.net. In their efforts to fight spam on the Internet, and using > their own internal analyses, they have identified the arrl.net as a > "spam source" and therefore, are blocking all messages including > valid e-mail that you want to receive. > > We have tried to discuss the situation with Earthlink but they > refuse to change their position. They understand that the spam > doesn't originate with arrl.net but are pushing the problem back > upstream for someone else to resolve. This is despite the fact that > they have what they claim to be effective spam filters on their > computers and offer this service to their customers. > > In responses to some ARRL members, they have also alleged that the > arrl.net is an "open relay" which is patently untrue. We have the > e-mail forwarding server configured specifically so it is not an > "open relay" which is more susceptible to being used to introduce > spam into the Internet. > > We will continue to try and resolve the situation with Earthlink > but an immediate resolution is unlikely. If you would like to > continue to receive mail through arrl.net to your Earthlink > account, I would suggest you contact Earthlink directly as well. > They may be more willing to listen to 2,600 customers than they are > to listen to the ARRL. > > If you have any questions I will try and answer them but I must ask > in advance for you patience as I will not be able to answer e-mails > from 2,600 members all at once. > > Again, we will continue in our efforts to resolve the matter with > Earthlink and will post any changes in the situation to the ARRL > web page as they occur. > > 73, > Barry Shelley, N1VXY > Chief Financial Officer > ARRL, Inc. > > Earthlink Still Delaying arrll.net e-mail > > Despite several discussions with representatives of Earthlink and > changing stories from them on why they have instituted this action, > Earthlink continues to delay messages being forwarded from arrl.net > to earthlink.net addresses. As a result of Earthlink's actions, > ARRL cannot guarantee that messages forwarded from arrl.net to > members' e-mail addresses at Earthlink will be delivered. > > At the root of the issue, is Earthlink's contention that the > arrl.net domain is a spam source based on their internal standards > and analysis. While they understand the concept of a simple mail > forwarding system like arrl.net, and admit that the spam is not > originating from it, they maintain their position that blocking all > messages, including valid e-mail, from this domain is an effective > tactic in their efforts to fight spam on the Internet. Earthlink > has told ARRL staff that they will continue to delay messages until > the amount of spam being sent through this system is reduced to a > level they deem acceptable. > > Although we are attempting to contact the appropriate authorities > at Earthlink, the situation is currently at an impasse. We > understand and appreciate the inconvenience this represents to ARRL > members. Other large national ISPs have dealt with this specific > issue in a much more reasonable fashion once we were able to > contact them and explain the situation. Those ISPs as well as > hundreds of other smaller ones are accepting forwarded mail from > arrl.net. Earthlink, however, is not. > > If you are one of the members affected by Earthlink's actions and > have another e-mail account with a different ISP, you can change > your e-mail address where your arrl.net is forwarded. This can be > done through the Member Data page on the ARRL Members' Only Web > site. Changes to this information is delivered automatically twice > daily so it may take several hours for the change to take effect. > > You may also want to contact Earthlink individually if you do not > agree with their policies and tactics in this situation. E-mail can > be sent to abuse(a)abuse.earthlink.net. > > Again, we apologize for the inconvenience and we will continue to > try and resolve the situation with Earthlink.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9522] Re: Fwd: Today is his 103rd birthday ...
by Jim 27 Sep '03

27 Sep '03

The check . . . errrr, the QSL . . . is in the mail. I saw a spot for Mr. Burdick either yesterday of day before, so it appears he is still plugging away rather nicely. Jim W. AMATEUR RADIO: The only fail-safe communications system in the world. ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio is! Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040-9660, Tel. 513-459-0142, E-mail <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org -----Original Message----- From: R. B. Vallio [mailto:w6rgg@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:31 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9509] Re: Fwd: Today is his 103rd birthday ... My "new" card will be in the mail to him on Friday morning. A great idea. 73, Bob W6RGG ----- Original Message ----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:36 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9505] Fwd: Today is his 103rd birthday ... I think it would be nice if we sent him a QSL card from each of us. I will be sending tomorrow a letter of congratulations (official letter head). Jim

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9529] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by W3KD＠aol.com 27 Sep '03

27 Sep '03

> > > >Most of the discussion so far has centered on the adverse effects of BPL on > nearby hams. Is there also a possibility that this system would appropriate > the HF spectrum worldwide? > > Walt, Ed did modeling of reduction of long distance communications effectiveness using HF propagation software that predicted substantial reduction in communications range from BPL at present Part 15 levels. The study was included in our reply comments as an exhibit. 73, Chris W3KD

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9528] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL
by K5ur＠aol.com 27 Sep '03

27 Sep '03

In a message dated 9/26/03 7:29:57 PM Central Daylight Time, w6xd(a)comcast.net writes: << Fooled again... >> Hey Slick, don't ever underestimate me. Hee, hee, hee..... You're so funny, Darth. 73, Kilowatt 5 Unlimited Radiation

1 0