Grex Helpers Conference

Item 113: Grex System Problems Item

Entered by i on Tue Sep 24 23:27:36 2002:

87 new of 248 responses total.


#162 of 248 by other on Wed Dec 4 02:37:37 2002:

Well, that's what they tell me, but I just can't recall...


#163 of 248 by russ on Wed Dec 4 05:32:06 2002:

Re #159:  I was thinking of something more like putting new users
into a "no mail" (also no ftp, thus getting rid of donkey) group,
and giving people full privs if they become members, have an
identifiable USA presence or make a special request.  Existing
users would not be affected.

Getting rid of donkey might be worth the whole effort.


#164 of 248 by scott on Wed Dec 4 14:01:57 2002:

We disable accounts which do automated stuff anyway, so it's probably not as
big a problem as it appears.  The big edonkey problem was just excessive
clueless bots trying to connect, which somebody could do maliciously anyway.


#165 of 248 by mcnally on Wed Dec 4 14:33:45 2002:

  re #159:  

  > giving people full privs if they .. have an identifiable USA presence..

  I can't decide whether or not I'd like to hear your rationalization for
  this proposal or not..


#166 of 248 by mynxcat on Wed Dec 4 16:13:18 2002:

This response has been erased.



#167 of 248 by gull on Wed Dec 4 17:15:10 2002:

Re #157: It's not mail *from* Grex that's the problem, it's mail *to* Grex.

The problem has eased up for me a bit, lately, though I do still
occasionally see mailing list mail arrive out of order (which indicates
a batch of it didn't go through on the first attempt.)


#168 of 248 by cmcgee on Wed Dec 4 18:15:06 2002:

yeah, I'm still getting reports about mail that bounced from my grex address.
From the AATA, so it shouldn't be spam filtered.


#169 of 248 by jlamb on Thu Dec 5 00:12:17 2002:

Hola, Why was grex down????????

was it because of the new backtalk update?


#170 of 248 by scott on Thu Dec 5 00:15:06 2002:

Grex was down because of some kind of power blip, apparently.


#171 of 248 by russ on Thu Dec 5 02:29:31 2002:

The modems were ringing open around 6 PM.  Dunno if this
was a Grex problem or a modem problem.


#172 of 248 by russ on Thu Dec 5 13:00:19 2002:

Re #165:  Mostly because it's likely that someone coming in
through our dialups is in the USA, and we could automagically
include IP blocks belonging to US ISPs if it became an issue.
India and Brazil are no worse off for computers than Ann Arbor
was when Grex was founded; let them follow our example.

Re #166:  What part of "or makes a special request" was obscure?

The point is to reduce Grex's mail load (and potential for abuse)
by adding a hoop to jump through before being able to add to the load.
Other sites are much better suited to handling it than we are.


#173 of 248 by keesan on Thu Dec 5 15:22:26 2002:

Are you suggesting that groups of people in India, making $80/month each if
they are lucky or nothing if they are students, get together and pay for a
fast internet connection?  Some of them have really slow connections right
now and Yahoo takes a lot longer to use than grex even at its worst.  Ever
had a chat with someone who types a sentence then you both wait 30 sec for
it to appear?


#174 of 248 by mcnally on Thu Dec 5 16:49:15 2002:

  re #172:  but I'm still not clear on why American users rate special
  privileges under your reasoning.  What is it that makes a user from
  Atlanta, GA, or Pierre, SD more desirable than one from Madras or
  Yogjakarta or Rio de Janeiro?


#175 of 248 by jazz on Thu Dec 5 17:07:45 2002:

        I think he's thinking in terms of "community service".

        There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea.  Community credit
unions won't give accounts to someone from Rio de Janeiro, either, if they
don't have local relatives, but there's nothing immoral about it.  It just
doesn't seem to be the way that GREX is set up to be.


#176 of 248 by mynxcat on Thu Dec 5 17:26:03 2002:

This response has been erased.



#177 of 248 by krj on Thu Dec 5 17:38:41 2002:

Philosophical discussions about Grex, its community and its 
services need to be in SOME OTHER ITEM, not the System Problems report.


#178 of 248 by cmcgee on Thu Dec 5 18:25:12 2002:

Join Coop for a place to discuss the management of Grex.


#179 of 248 by mynxcat on Thu Dec 5 18:31:10 2002:

This response has been erased.



#180 of 248 by russ on Sat Dec 7 03:50:37 2002:

The mail delays are pretty bad.  I received some e-mail at about 7:20 PM
which was sent at about 5:30 PM.


#181 of 248 by aruba on Sat Dec 7 04:30:07 2002:

I've seen worse than that, lately.  What's going on?


#182 of 248 by davel on Sun Dec 8 19:06:06 2002:

I've seen much worse than that.


#183 of 248 by keesan on Mon Dec 9 18:08:45 2002:

The original message was received at Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:08:17 -0500
from keesan@localhost

   ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
<XXXX@bluegrass.net>  (unrecoverable error)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mail.bluegrass.net.:
>>> RCPT To:<XXXX@bluegrass.net>  

[The XXXX's are mine to hide the personal address]

<<< 554 Service unavailable; Client host [216.93.104.34] blocked using
bl.spamcop.net; Blocked - see http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml?216.93.104.34

Spamcop has a list of blocked IPs from which spam originates.  They take
you off the list after a week of no spams, I think.  Is there some way to
ask them to take grex off permanently and just send us a list of spammers
to delete their accounts instead?


#184 of 248 by keesan on Mon Dec 9 18:24:28 2002:

Here is what I got when I entered 216.93.104.34 into the form at spamcop -
10 reports of spam from grex, with a sampling of the originating
addresses, and a list of the many other times grex has been blacklisted
this year, sometimes for 1 minute, sometimes for 10 days.


   Query bl.spamcop.net - 216.93.104.34

   216.93.104.34 listed in bl.spamcop.net.
   216.93.104.34 Qty Most Recent Oldest
   Spam reports: 10 42.87 hours ago
   Sat Dec 7 23:21:19 2002 GMT 45.36 hours ago

     Rationale: Spam score 10.00: spam report ratio (10.000) exceeds
     threshold (0.020)

   Samples of reported spam:

   Reportid: 132139819 dated Sat Dec 7 23:12:51 2002 GMT
Return-Path: <tmobile@grex.cyberspace.org>
Received: from mb1i0.ns.pitt.edu (mb1i0.ns.pitt.edu [136.142.186.35])
          by imap.srv.cis.pitt.edu with ESMTP (8.8.8/8.8.8/cisimap-7.2.2.4)
          ID <SAA20065@imap.srv.cis.pitt.edu>;
          Sat, 7 Dec 2002 18:12:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from grex.cyberspace.org ([216.93.104.34])
 by pitt.edu (PMDF V5.2-32 #41462)
 with SMTP id <01KPRD2OSGBG004HJ1@mb1i0.ns.pitt.edu>; Sat,
 7 Dec 2002 18:12:51 EST
Received: from localhost (tmobile@localhost)
 by grex.cyberspace.org (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA20366; Sat,
 07 Dec 2002 18:08:14 -0500
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:08:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Kenneth <>
Subject: *** HOLIDAY SEASON SPECIALS FROM T-MOBILE ***
To: x
Message-id: <Pine_________________________________0000@grex.cyberspace.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


Reportid: 123931890 dated
Sun Nov 10 09:16:13 2002 GMT
Status:  U
Return-Path: <admin9@cyberspace.org>
Received: from grex.cyberspace.org ([216.93.104.34])
        by killdeer (EarthLink SMTP Server) with SMTP id 18aOct1p33NZFlr0
        for <x>; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 01:16:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from admin9@localhost) by grex.cyberspace.org (8.6.13/8.6.12) id EAA
08366 for x; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 04:17:24 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 04:17:24 -0500
From: null <>
Message-Id: <2002_____________8366@grex.cyberspace.org>
To: x

[HERE IS A SUMMARY OF ALL THE TIMES GREX GOT ON THE SPAMCOP BLACKLIST]


Listing history:

listed: Sun Nov 25 13:33:01 2001 GMT
delisted: Mon Nov 26 09:20:01 2001 GMT

listed:  Sat Feb  9 08:22:01 2002 GMT
delisted: Sun Feb 10 03:57:01 2002 GMT

listed: Thu Apr 25 21:39:01 2002 GMT
delisted: Mon May  6 04:11:01 2002 GMT
[This was for a longer period]

listed: Sun Nov 10 09:34:02 2002 GMT
delisted:Wed Nov 13 09:48:01 2002 GMT
[This sounds like about the time I was unable to write my ISP.]

listed:Sat Dec  7 21:47:01 2002 GMT
delisted:Sat Dec  7 22:43:03 2002 GMT
[Delisted after one minute!]

listed: Sun Dec  8 00:54:02 2002 GMT

-----------

Grex has been on the blacklist since Sunday just after midnight.


Would it help to post this sort of info in the motd so people can expect
to get their mails bounced back and know when to resend them?
--------------

References
   6. http://spamcop.net/


#185 of 248 by gull on Mon Dec 9 19:40:18 2002:

Another note on the 'delayed email' conversation.  I just an email early
this afternoon that had been sent at 8 pm last night.


#186 of 248 by mdw on Tue Dec 10 02:34:17 2002:

Spamcop apparently puts you on the list first and doesn't tell you
afterwards.  There's no way a public access system like grex can
guarantee it will stay off such a list.  There's also no way such any
system that *uses* such a list can guarantee reliable mail - because the
list itself does not have adequate checks for abuse or mistakes.
Spamcop.net itself grudgingly acknowledges this feature but doesn't
explain why it's inherent in their design:
        http://spamcop.net/bl.shtml
I don't see why there's any reason we should make any announcements
regarding this list - any more than we should list when any other mail
service provider goes down for any reason.


#187 of 248 by sholmes on Tue Dec 10 04:38:40 2002:

I was reading the conferences and when I quit , I got logged out of grex ..
Below is what appeared on my screen
Respond, pass, forget, quit, or ? for more options? p

Browse (item list), Read (new items),
Join confname (type "help conf" for a list of conferences),
Help (for more help), pine (for e-mail)
Quit (to exit) or !change (to change settings).

Ok: Read from remote host grex.org: Connection reset by peer
Connection to grex.org closed.
[ary@mp17 ~]$


#188 of 248 by dang on Tue Dec 10 04:52:42 2002:

Sounds like a timeout or network glitch.  If you got kicked off by the
idle killer, it would have printed a message.


#189 of 248 by carson on Tue Dec 10 07:38:16 2002:

resp:186  (Spamcop *will* pass along reports, if requested.  it would
          relatively easy to guess, based on those reports, whether  
          Grex were a prime candidate for blacklisting.)

          http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/94.html

(me, I find it refreshing to know that Grex has only been on Spamcop's 
blacklist six times in the past year, and, excepting the late April-
early May period [which appears to be an aberration], for less than 
seven days.  that's about 98% off-list, right?)

(the "admin9" account appears to have been a toss-away.)


#190 of 248 by gull on Tue Dec 10 14:26:38 2002:

Given the way Spamcop operates, any site that uses it for rejecting mail
is being irresponsible to their users.  It's too sensitive, and too easy
to abuse.

I've used Spamcop, but only for tagging mail to shunt into my Junk Mail
folder, like I would use a content-based filter.


#191 of 248 by keesan on Tue Dec 10 19:38:45 2002:

I just asked the person to whom I cannot send grex email for a week because
of spamcop to ask his ISP to stop using spamcop's blacklist.  


#192 of 248 by mdw on Tue Dec 10 20:53:33 2002:

Spamcop apparently sends its reports to grex to "uce@" - which is not
required by any RFC and which we don't review on a regular basis.

I found the spamcop report for Nov 6 - the block seems to have been
triggered by spam forwarded *through* grex via a .forward to a certain
chinet account, and thence off to spamcop Nov 7.  So the particular spam
responsible for this problem wasn't even originated *on* grex.
Ironically, spamcop's use of uce@ for this mail *was* appropriate; sites
that block grex based on this are deliberately sacrificing mail
reliability and not using spamcop's blocking service the way they
recommend.


#193 of 248 by keesan on Tue Dec 10 22:31:49 2002:

Is it possible to change things so that mail cannot be forwarded through grex,
or would that interfere with normal use of grex mail?  


#194 of 248 by mdw on Tue Dec 10 22:36:05 2002:

Well, a lot of people, including me, forward mail from grex.  So yes, it
would interfere with "normal" use of grex mail.  It could be argued that
grex shouldn't be in the mail forwarding business.


#195 of 248 by cross on Tue Dec 10 22:52:27 2002:

This response has been erased.



#196 of 248 by carson on Wed Dec 11 06:00:08 2002:

resp:192   (wrong, wrong, wrong.)

           (1.  SpamCop reports for 216.93.104.34 are currently sent
           to abuse@voyager.net.  see http://spamcop.net/sc?track=216.93.10
4.34
           for details.)

           (2.  if I receive spam at my Grex address, which forwards to my
           Chinet account, and file a SpamCop report, I regularly forward
           a copy of that report to uce@grex.  this is likely what you are
           seeing in the uce inbox.)

           (3.  there was no SpamCop block on Grex on November 6.  you
           either must be subconsciously combining the two separate dates
           of November 10 and December 7 or not reading carefully.  either
           way, keesan already cited the two spams sent from Grex that
           caused those blocks in an earlier response.  you can see them
           for yourself at

                http://spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=216.93.104.34

           I've checked my report #s and can verify that I did *not*
           submit either report.  of course, I didn't get the spam,
           either.)  ;)

(re: misinformation keesan is spreading over in coop:  Grex was delisted
on the 9th of December.  two days is not a week.)

(I concur with all earlier responses regarding the use of SpamCop's
blacklist, namely that it's Not A Good Idea to use it.)


#197 of 248 by keesan on Wed Dec 11 16:56:12 2002:

Thanks for the delisting information.  I will now go back to using grex for
sending email to places that use spamcop's list.  (I discovered along the way
that the free webmail service I was forwarding through instead converts all
text attachments to MIME, that my intended recipient's Netscape mail cannot
handle MIME attachments, and that my ISP's webmail not only cannot forward
attachments but cannot read MIME attachments either!!!!!).  Pine is great!

Spamcop said they automatically delist sites in a week - I did not understand
the details of when they sometimes delist in less time than this.  Can you
explain that?  


#198 of 248 by remmers on Wed Dec 11 17:23:38 2002:

Hmm.... Never heard of a version of Netscape mail that didn't handle
MIME attachments.


#199 of 248 by mcnally on Wed Dec 11 19:40:06 2002:

  Possibly she means the "My Netscape"-portal web-based e-mail, not the
  GUI mail client that comes bundled with Navigator?


#200 of 248 by keesan on Wed Dec 11 19:44:42 2002:

My intended recipient only said 'Netscape'.  I asked for more info.
My ISP's web-based email does not handle MIME.  I have not checked if Yahoo
mail does so (probably it does) but I am about to check Pine 3.96 at grex
because I think it had trouble with this same mail when I forwarded it back.
Pine 3.96 is the latest version of pine that does not render HTML.  Pine is
now up to version 4.50.  Grex might want to consider switching.  Just about
everyone we have taught to use grex mail phones or emails asking what to do
about html mail - their usual solution is to ignore it.  If the sender
included text as well you can do a Reply to read the text part, but our
beginners cannot handle View, Save, Exit, Quit, view with Lynx, print to text,
exit lynx, return to pine, go back to the mail, do a reply, and import the
text output from lynx.  Should I bring this up in co-op?


#201 of 248 by keesan on Wed Dec 11 19:59:51 2002:

I forwarded the email with text attachment (which I could read with Pine 3.96)
from grex to the free webmail service (where I could read the attachment) and
then back to Grex.  I cannot read the attachment with Pine after forwarding
it there and back - View gives me the message [Can't display missing text
segment].  The free webmail service converts the text attachment to a MIME
encoded attachment.  If they have done this properly, should Pine be able to
decode and display it as text?  The ISP webmail service simply did not display
any attachment at all - I don't think it can handle MIME encoding, but
possibly there is something wrong with the encoded version.  This ISP webmail
service received the attachment - I can see the upper-case ASCII when I view
the HTML version of the page - just does not display it.  It says there is
1 attachment.  


#202 of 248 by keesan on Wed Dec 11 20:25:28 2002:

I opened a new account at m-net and they have Pine 4.44 which has the new
feature 'Export as plain text file' to deal with html messages, but still
cannot read the MIME-encoded attachment from the free webmail service.  I
wonder if they encoded it improperly.


#203 of 248 by mdw on Wed Dec 11 20:36:21 2002:

Here is the message I found in uce@.  I'm afraid I botched the date
above; so shoot me, I'm human.  Note date: Dec 7: note it was sent from
spamcop not Carson: note this is the *only* message I found from
julianhaight.com going to any administrative account on grex for the
past 2 weeks.  I suppose it's possible this isn't the actual message
that triggered the block, if so, then we've received *no* notification
for the block.  I don't blame Carson for any of this - I believe spamcop
fails in an unfortunate way, and did so here:

        From 131441976@bounces.spamcop.net Sat Dec  7 00:24:48 2002$
        Received: from saruman.julianhaight.com (saruman.julianhaight.com
        [216.127.43.87]) by grex.cyberspace.org (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id
        AAA07159 for <uce@grex.org>; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 00:24:46 -0500$ Received:
        (qmail 11842 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2002 05:16:28 -0000$
               Received: from localhost (HELO spamcop.net) (127.0.0.1)$
          by saruman.julianhaight.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2002 05:16:28 -0000$
        Received: from [204.38.207.130] by spamcop.net$
        ^Iwith HTTP; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 05:16:28 GMT$
        From: "Carson" <131441976@reports.spamcop.net>$
        To: uce@grex.org$
        Subject: [SpamCop (Forwarded Spam) id:131441976]*****SPAM***** Try a
        FREE 30 Day Sample of HGH !$ Precedence: list$ Message-ID:
        <131441976@spamcop.net>$ Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 12:40:40 +0900$
               X-SpamCop-sourceip: 203.145.15.153$ X-Mailer: Mozilla/4.0
        (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; NMU; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)$ ^Ivia
        http://spamcop.net/ v1.3.3$ $ - SpamCop V1.3.3 -$ This message is
        brief for your comfort.  Please follow links for details.$ $ http:/
/spamcop.net/w3m?i=z131441976z3568a9fae07466db073765233c498529z$ User-targeted
        report, see notes, if any.$ $ Offending message:$ Received: from
        grex.cyberspace.org (grex.cyberspace.org [216.93.104.34])$ ^Iby
        chinet.chinet.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with SMTP id
        gB73gtZ4020503$ ^Ifor <x>; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 21:42:56 -0600$ Received:
        from www.kocomnet.com ([210.205.61.9]) by grex.cyberspace.org
        (8.6.13/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26182; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 22:44:12 -0500$
               Received: from email-com.mr.outblaze.com ([203.145.15.153])$
            ^Iby www.kocomnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24893;$ ^ISat,
        7 Dec 2002 12:40:40 +0900$ Message-ID:
        <0000______________________2f96@email-com.mr.outblaze.com>$ To: <x>$
             From: "dustin ketchum" <>$ Subject: *****SPAM***** Try a FREE 30
        Day Sample of HGH !$ Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 10:40:22 -0500$
            MIME-Version: 1.0$ Content-Type: text/plain$
         Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit$ Reply-To: fmaperezr@email.com$
         X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616$ X-Spam-Status: Yes,
        hits=11.6 required=5.0
        tests=FAKED_UNDISC_RECIPS,PLING,GAPPY_TEXT,CLICK_BELOW,ONE_HUNDRED_PC_GU
        AR,GUARANTEE,SUPERLONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_ORBS,RCVD_IN_RFCI version=2.20$
            X-Spam-Flag: YES$ X-Spam-Level: ***********$
         X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.20 (devel $Id:
        SpamAssassin.pm,v 1.77 2002/04/06 19:28:30 hughescr Exp $)$
            X-Spam-Prev-Content-Type: text/plain;$ ^Icharset="Windows-1252"$
             X-Spam-Prev-Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit$ $ $ SPAM:
        -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ----------------------$
               SPAM: This mail is probably spam.  The original message has been
        altered$ SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in
        future.$ SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.$
               SPAM: $ SPAM: Content analysis details:   (11.6 hits, 5
        required)$ SPAM: Hit! (3.4 points)  Faked To "Undisclosed-Recipients"$
               SPAM: Hit! (0.5 points)  Subject has an exclamation mark$ SPAM:
        Hit! (-1.2 points) BODY: Contains 'G.a.p.p.y-T.e.x.t'$ SPAM: Hit! (1.5
        points)  BODY: Asks you to click below$ SPAM: Hit! (4.4 points)  BODY:
        One hundred percent guaranteed$ SPAM: Hit! (1.9 points)  BODY: Contains
        word 'guarantee' in all-caps$ SPAM: Hit! (-0.4 points) BODY: Contains a
        line >=199 characters long$ SPAM: Hit! (1.0 point)   Received via a
        relay in orbs.dorkslayers.com$ SPAM:                    [RBL check:
        found 9.61.205.210.orbs.dorkslayers.com.]$ SPAM: Hit! (0.5 points) 
        Received via a relay in ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org$ SPAM:                
           [RBL check: found 9.61.205.210.ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org., type:
        127.0.0.6]$ SPAM: $ SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin
        results ---------------------$ $ $ $ Younger and healthier with
        ULTIMATE-hGH: all-natural human growth hormone supplement designed to
        stimulate own production of growth hormone (hgh)!$ $ As seen on N.B.C.,
        C.B.S., C.N.N., and even OpRah!! The health discovery that
        actuallyreverses aging while burning fat, without dieting or exercise!
        This provendiscovery has even been reported on by the New England
        Journal of Medicine.Forget aging and dieting forever! And it's
        Guaranteed! $ $ Click below to enter our web site:$ http://www.game
towncastle.com/hgh/$ $ Would you like to lose weight while you sleep!$ No
        dieting!$ No hunger pains!$ No Cravings!$ No strenuous exercise!$
          Change your life forever! $ $ 100% GUARANTEED!$ $ 1.Body Fat Loss 82%
        improvement.$ 2.Wrinkle Reduction 61% improvement.$ 3.Energy Level 84%
        improvement.$ 4.Muscle Strength 88% improvement.$ 5.Sexual Potency 75%
        improvement.$ 6.Emotional Stability 67% improvement.$ 7.Memory 62%
        improvement.$ $ Click below to enter our web site:$ http://www.game
towncastle.com/hgh/$ $ $ **************************************************$ If
        you want to get removed$ from our list please visit - http://www.ga
metowncastle.com/rm/rm.html$
             **************************************************$ $ $ $


#204 of 248 by carson on Wed Dec 11 22:00:34 2002:

(yep, that's a report I forwarded to uce because the original message 
was sent to me here.  I suppose that begs the question of whether the
information in the report is at all useful; the reason that I forward
them is because Marcus had asked for examples of spam sent to Grex.
anyway, I've already gone over where SpamCop sends reports for Grex 
[they go upstream to abuse@voyager, not to Grex]; for that reason, I
highly doubt that any such reports would have been forwarded to Grex.)

(http://spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/94.html explains how to go about
getting those reports sent to Grex.  there's a form to fill out at
http://spamcop.net/w3m?action=routeform that may require assent from
someone at Voyager.)

(re: delisting:  SpamCop automatically delists an address if there are no 
reports against it within the past 48 hours.  for whatever reason, that's
not in the FAQ, but it is explained on the query page.)

(it looks like Grex is particularly vulnerable to SpamCop blocking because
of a low spam threshold [0.020 spam per non-spam] and because we aren't
sending enough legitimate e-mail to systems that use the blocking list
[catch-22?].  perhaps this whole thing deserves its own item...)


#205 of 248 by carson on Wed Dec 11 22:03:24 2002:

(both "tmobile" and "admin9" have existing accounts on Grex.  I find
the "last login" dates amusing, for obvious reasons.)


#206 of 248 by aruba on Wed Dec 11 22:25:42 2002:

Not bvious to me, I'm afraid.


#207 of 248 by carson on Thu Dec 12 04:23:24 2002:

(the "last login" dates are when the accounts sent the spam that put
Grex on SpamCop's blacklist, i.e., they've likely only been used once.)


#208 of 248 by gull on Thu Dec 12 14:11:58 2002:

The report wouldn't have appeared to come from carson.  Spamcop
deliberately munges the addresses, to prevent spammers from retaliating
or reselling them.


#209 of 248 by aruba on Thu Dec 12 15:24:36 2002:

Re #207: Ah.  Thanks.


#210 of 248 by dpc on Thu Dec 12 16:38:55 2002:

Over the past month or so, e-mail to me from non-Grex
sources is often *seriously* delayed.

This morning's collection has an e-mail sent to me from
umich.edu on Dec. 10 at 3:06 p.m. which did not arrive
at Grex until Dec. 12 (today) at 4:27 a.m.

My wife and I frequently get duplicate e-mails from
the same sender(s).  She has a Comcast account.  
Her e-mails arrive almost immediately after they
are sent.  Mine are delayed for up to a day!

What is happening here?


#211 of 248 by remmers on Thu Dec 12 16:46:52 2002:

Marcus talked about that problem a bit at last night's board meeting.
He's not sure but thinks it might be a (possibly inadvertent) form of
denial-of-service attack.  He's investigating.  I'll let him explain
more fully if he wishes.


#212 of 248 by gull on Thu Dec 12 20:46:18 2002:

Re #211: Thanks.  I don't know about other people here, but mostly I just
wanted to know that the problem was being taken seriously and investigated.
:)


#213 of 248 by dpc on Fri Dec 13 14:56:01 2002:

Thanx!  The problem is quite annoying.  An e-mail was sent to
me from aadl.org (the Library) on Wednesday, Dec. 11 at 5:36 p.m.
and I didn't receive it until today, Dec. 13, at 3:32 a.m.


#214 of 248 by dang on Sat Dec 14 00:46:07 2002:

It's causing havok on the Grex staff list as staffers answer questions
multiple times because the answers cross each other in flight by hours.


#215 of 248 by mdw on Sat Dec 14 11:29:52 2002:

I think I better understand why mail got slow.  We apparently have at
least 3 different spammers trying to connect to grex, but failing to do
so.  Presumably there's a firewall, possibly at their end, perhaps in
the middle, that drops packets from grex to the spammers.  The half-open
connections occupy slots in the input queue, and there are only a
limited number of such connections that are permitted to exist.  After
those slots fill up, other connection attempts are silently ignored.
Since the 3 spammers have at least 20 IP addresses between them, they're
doing a pretty good job of keeping those slots full.  And, since we
never actually get any connections from them, let alone mail, they don't
appear in our logs at all.  This is certainly going to be "interesting"
to fix.  So far, a few simple things I tried haven't been useful, but
there are certainly any number of not so simple fixes we can do.

I suppose we should be thankful that we don't get the spam.


#216 of 248 by mcnally on Sat Dec 14 13:43:49 2002:

  Are we running any sort of IP filtering SW that can simply block those
  IP addresses completely or don't we have the horsepower for that?


#217 of 248 by keesan on Sat Dec 14 16:11:17 2002:

Can you simply write to these spammers, point out to them that the mail is
not getting through to grex anyway but they are disabling our system, and ask
them to 'delist' us (stop sending things in our direction)?  


#218 of 248 by dpc on Sat Dec 14 17:19:04 2002:

Thanks for keeping us informed, Marcus.  What a problem!


#219 of 248 by cross on Sat Dec 14 21:20:47 2002:

This response has been erased.



#220 of 248 by mcnally on Sat Dec 14 22:58:51 2002:

  It's been a long time since I've dealt with something like this but it
  seems at first glance that a simple package like tcp_wrappers should be
  fine for this, I don't think you need full bpf-style flexibility.


#221 of 248 by dang on Sun Dec 15 01:04:02 2002:

We can completely block their IP ranges, and we routinely put such
blocks in place.  However, there appear to be quite a few legit users
who connect from those ranges, so we'd prefer not to block them entirely
if possible.  Besides, if Marcus can fix this problem, then this won't
happen in the future.  I'd say blocking the range is a last resort.


#222 of 248 by carson on Sun Dec 15 01:05:37 2002:

(I'd say blocking the range is a first, temporary measure, but that's
a discussion for another conference.)


#223 of 248 by keesan on Sun Dec 15 01:13:34 2002:

What is an IP range?  Can you block just specific IP numbers rather than a
range, and if legitimate users are also using those IP numbers can the ISP
be asked to cancel just those accounts or is this a free mail service where
they keep signing up for new accounts?  Or am I confused?


#224 of 248 by mdw on Sun Dec 15 01:32:04 2002:

Tcp wrappers can't help - they work at the user level; this problem
isn't even visible at the user level, so there's no way to use it to
reject connections.  The DSL router has a limited capability of
filtering packets, but we don't administer it, so that's not useful to
us.  obsd pf would be quite capable of that, but we're not on openbsd
yet, and an obsd pf firewall of some sort would also work, but that's
quite a bit of work.  It may be worth doing this anyways, but it's not
going to happen this weekend.  My current plan is to try to write
something that can "sniff" the wire, detect when grex tries to complete
a connect to a set of bad IP ranges, and send packets to grex to cause
the connections to be aborted.  I tried to do just this last night, but
I'm afraid lack of sleep was catching up fast with me and I didn't
succeed in getting this to work.  I'm going to try to debug this
separately outside of grex where I can better figure out what's
happening, and hope to have better luck making this work with grex
tomorrow.


#225 of 248 by gelinas on Sun Dec 15 03:33:50 2002:

(#217 assumes that spammers *care* that they are inconveniencing other.  If
they did, they'd not send the junk in the first place.  So why bother asking
them to stop?)


#226 of 248 by mcnally on Sun Dec 15 05:13:20 2002:

  No doubt my understanding of the problem is completely deficient but
  nothing said so far illustrates to me why this problem can't be dealt
  with by using tcp wrappers to block these IP addresses from connecting
  to just the SMTP port.

  I'm really not understanding what Marcus is saying in the first sentence
  of 224.  My recollecton concerning TCP wrappers is that the major reason
  to run the package is to allow selective blocking of incoming connections
  on certain ports.  I'll admit it's been a long time, though, maybe I'm
  thinking of another package entirely.


#227 of 248 by gull on Sun Dec 15 17:26:18 2002:

Re #225: They might care they're wasting time trying to connect to a machine
they can't get through to.

Re #226: I got the impression these were half-open connections -- a syn
flood, in effect, filling up the state table.  In that case TCP wrappers
wouldn't help because it doesn't kick in until the connection is
established.  Did I read wrong?


#228 of 248 by krj on Sun Dec 15 19:01:37 2002:

I have another report of lost mail.  I sent my sister e-mail on 
Wednesday; she tells me by phone today that she received the mail
promptly and replied, but the reply hasn't shown on up on Grex after
about three days.


#229 of 248 by cross on Sun Dec 15 19:11:43 2002:

This response has been erased.



#230 of 248 by gelinas on Mon Dec 16 01:01:10 2002:

(Three days is the usual "first notification" limit, so she may have gotten
her message back by now, or at least a warning that it has not yet been
delivered.)


#231 of 248 by gelinas on Mon Dec 16 01:21:26 2002:

Re #227: It's bulk mail; the individual recipient, or even the individual
machine, isn't important.  *IF* the hung connections were inconveniencing
the senders, they *might* be interested in fixing it.  But if they were
being inconvenienced, they'd have noticed, no?  They haven't fixed it,
so they (must not | probably don't) care.


#232 of 248 by mdw on Mon Dec 16 02:32:42 2002:

My guess is that the bulk mailers were in the "process" of being
disconnected; they still had the physical IP connection and could send
packets, but were using addresses that were no longer "routable", so it
was no longer possible to send packets back to them.

The tcp wrappers come with a library and it's possible to compile other
programs (such as sshd) to use the same basic blocking code.  It
wouldn't be useful for sendmail hwever as there are way too many mail
gateways that, when a connection fails for any reason, immediately retry
without even waiting.  So, in fact, you actually want to accept the
connection, wait until they try to send mail, and *then* deliver a 5xx
error code.  That *should* clear the queue entry out at their end and
avoid the retry.  Grex's sendmail isn't great at doing this, but it does
have support and we use it routinely against people we recognize as
spammers.  Last week, we rejected 1904 pieces of mail using this
facility.  The 5xx error also contains a URL, and 11 people read the
file referenced by the URL.


#233 of 248 by dang on Mon Dec 16 02:36:39 2002:

SYN floods require kernel level protection.  All modern kernels have
such protections built in.  Unfortuantly, Grex is not yet running a
modern kernel.  Hence our current problem.


#234 of 248 by mcnally on Mon Dec 16 04:36:58 2002:

  Ahh..  Ok, now I get it.


#235 of 248 by jazz on Mon Dec 16 14:22:36 2002:

        Conventional kernel-level SYN flood protection wouldn't help you here,
anyways, since it isn't a "flood" in the sense that there aren't many
connection attempts being made.


#236 of 248 by davel on Mon Dec 16 20:56:52 2002:

For whatever it's worth:  I send (from off site) several messages a day to
a couple of people on Grex.  From the system where I send them, I see them
hanging in the queue for long periods.  Usually the error message given is
  Deferred: Connection timed out with grex.cyberspace.org.
but sometimes it is
  Deferred: Interrupted system call

Given what's been said, I assume that it times out because there are too many
of these half-open connections.  But I have to wonder if the "Interrupted
system call" error doesn't occur because I somehow get a half-open connection.
At any rate, I thought I'd mention this message.


#237 of 248 by dang on Tue Dec 17 02:42:38 2002:

resp:235 That depends on how the particular kernel detects SYN floods. 
I would classify "sevaral" half open connections at at time from the
same IP as a SYN flood.  How you define "several" depends on the system
and it's load, I suppose.

Many kernels have tunable SYN timeouts, which could be useful here. 
Time them out quicker.  (Incidentally, my Linux 2.4 box has a max of
1024 backloged SYNs.)


#238 of 248 by mdw on Tue Dec 17 06:02:45 2002:

The half-open connections are typically from several *different* IP
addresses.  So, anything that thinks a syn flood comes from one IP
address isn't going to recognize this.  Another technique is just to
randomly close out several connections in the middle of the queue - that
would work better here, but would probably also randomly trash real
connections that were too slow to complete.

"Interrupted system call" isn't something grex can create directly.
This would result from an interrupt caused by some event on the remote
end (such as alarm(2)) that caused a system call to be aborted.
Probably that means something was too slow at grex's end, although that
seems difficult to believe, tcp & standard smtp timeouts are pretty big.
Perhaps it means something quite different.


#239 of 248 by russ on Thu Dec 19 03:28:42 2002:

I just got a piece of mail, delivered 2-something Wednesday morning.
It had been sent at 6:08 AM on Monday. 

I got another piece of mail, delivered 3:30 PM Wednesday afternoon.
It had been sent about 7 PM *last Saturday night*.

This mail-refusal problem is way out of hand.  Something Must Be Done.


#240 of 248 by gelinas on Thu Dec 19 03:47:14 2002:

Russ, can you look at the Received: lines and tell where it got hung up?


#241 of 248 by jep on Thu Dec 19 14:22:39 2002:

Grex is running really slowly.  The load average is down to around 6 right
now, but was up to 19+.


#242 of 248 by keesan on Thu Dec 19 15:29:58 2002:

Still running slowly, on and off.  I waited close to a minute to open my
mailbox with Pine (100 plus message, I admit).  BBS is okay.


#243 of 248 by russ on Thu Dec 19 23:50:15 2002:

(trying again after crash during upload)

The hangups are getting to Grex; what else?  Here are the headers,
with some info abridged.

Received: from FOREIGN.SYSTEM (FOREIGN.SYSTEM [NNN.NNN.NNN.NN]) by
grex.cyberspace.org (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA17563 for
<russ@cyberspace.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:41:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 13305
invoked by uid 0); 16 Dec 2002 11:13:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO
OTHER.SYSTEM) (unknown)
  by unknown with SMTP; 16 Dec 2002 11:13:00 -0000
Received: from OTHER.SYSTEM (IDENT:25@localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by OTHER.SYSTEM (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gBGBAn6k019152;
        Mon, 16 Dec 2002 06:10:50 -0500
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
        by OTHER.SYSTEM (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id gBGB8n3o018402;
        Mon, 16 Dec 2002 06:08:49 -0500
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 06:08:49 -0500

From USER@SOMESITE.COM Wed Dec 18 15:31:51 2002
Received: from ashd1-2.relay.mail.uu.net (ashd1-2.relay.mail.uu.net
[199.171.54.246]) by grex.cyberspace.org (8.6.13/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA05636
for <russ@cyberspace.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:31:49 -0500 Received: from
smtp.SOMESITE.COM by mr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with SMTP 
        (peer crosschecked as: SMTP.SOMESITE.COM [NN.NNN.NNN.NNN])
        id QQntgq19875
        for <russ@cyberspace.org>; Sun, 15 Dec 2002 00:11:46 GMT
Received: from Connect2 Message Router by smtp.SOMESITE.COM
        via Connect2-SMTP 4.32; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:17:31 -0500
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:06:00 -0500

As you can see the first message took more than 44 hours to make the
last hop to Grex; the second took 6 minutes to get to uu.net (note
the time change from EST to GMT, and that the clock at the message
router is fast), and then it took until Wednesday afternoon to get
to Grex (over 92 hours).

That's pretty pathetic.  You could get a message round-trip to
Pioneer 11 in about half that time.


#244 of 248 by gull on Fri Dec 20 00:07:11 2002:

Reminds me of sending stuff via packet radio.  If it arrived faster than
snail mail, it was a good day.


#245 of 248 by gelinas on Fri Dec 20 00:39:29 2002:

Thanks, Russ.


#246 of 248 by krj on Fri Dec 20 18:44:24 2002:

The RoadRunner ISP has decided to block mail from Grex because
they think Grex is offering an open proxy server.
 
----------
From daemon Fri Dec 20 02:27:07 2002
Received: from localhost (localhost) by grex.cyberspace.org (8.6.13/8.6.12)
with internal id CAA19965; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 02:27:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Dec
2002 02:27:06 -0500 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
<MAILER-DAEMON@cyberspace.org> Subject: Returned mail: Remote protocol error
Message-Id: <200212200727.CAA19965@grex.cyberspace.org> To: krj@cyberspace.org
MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="CAA19965.1040369226/grex.cyberspace.org" Status: R

This is a MIME-encapsulated message

--CAA19965.1040369226/grex.cyberspace.org

The original message was received at Fri, 20 Dec 2002 02:27:01 -0500
from krj@localhost

   ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
XXXXXX@austin.rr.com  (unrecoverable error)

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to txmx01.mgw.rr.com.:
>>> MAIL From:<krj@cyberspace.org>
<<< 550 5.7.1 Mail Refused - 216.93.104.34 - See http://security.rr.com/mai
l_blocks.htm#proxy
... while talking to txmx02.mgw.rr.com.:
>>> MAIL From:<krj@cyberspace.org>
<<< 550 5.7.1 Mail Refused - 216.93.104.34 - See http://security.rr.com/mail_blocks.htm#proxy
----------

... and etc down a whole list of mail servers.


#247 of 248 by tpryan on Sat Dec 21 20:15:42 2002:

(remmers will now probably remind us how he used to send packets
by carrier pigeon, and his ISP number was 3).


#248 of 248 by tsty on Sun Dec 22 08:05:32 2002:

2


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: