RE: [ga] Reducing the noise level

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

On 20-Dec-1999 Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 07:07 PM 12/19/1999 , Kent Crispin wrote:
>>Received: from ns1.vrx.net (ns1.vrx.net [204.138.71.254])
>>         by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA06544
>>         for <ga@dnso.org>; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 04:06:10 +0100 (MET)
>>Received: from ns1.vrx.net (ns1.vrx.net [199.166.24.1])
>>         by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C44F049
>>         for <ga@dnso.org>; Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:07:36 -0500 (EST)
>>Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 22:07:36 -0500 (EST)
>>From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
>>X-Sender: baptista@ns1.vrx.net
>>Cc: ga@dnso.org
>>Subject: Re: [ga] Enough private replies...
>>
>>This is not Crispy Kent - this is the lovely Joe Baptista.
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Again we see fraudulent message authorship coming from a user of 
> vrx.net.  The administrator of that system is aware of the history but has 
> failed to take action.
> 
> That leaves the requirement for the rest of us to filter all mail from 
> vrx.net.
> 
> Building a filter that looks for "from" and "vrx.net" in a Received header 
> is the safest way to ensure an effective filter, since such a Received 
> header is put on be the system vrx.net is sending to -- in this case, by 
> dnso.dnso.org -- and, therefore, vrx.net cannot work around it.
> 

As far as I am concerned vrx.net should be filtered at the router level. If
they will not take action to prevent this type of behavior from their users. 
If any ISP here locally had a user who did these things, they would put him on
notice one time, and then they would remove his access. They would also make
sure the other local ISPs knew what to expect, and he would find a very hard
time getting local access.

VRX.Net and its principles have a severe credibility problem, they not only
won't act to stop this type of action, they actively encourage and support his
activity, and have now taken it upon themselves to bring him into the
"administration" of the ORSC, presumably to give him some "credentials."

The ORSC prior work could be tainted as a result, work I actively supported and
still agree with.  Anyone who supported that work should be seriously concerned
over the credibilty problems that will now taint the ORSC by association with
this individual, and the person who actively supports and provides shelter to
this person.

--
William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192