Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Security Spam

Scam-Linked ISP Intercage / Atrivo Gets Shut Out 102

Posted by timothy
from the don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out dept.
alphadogg writes with this excerpt from Network World: "The lifeline linking notorious service provider Intercage to the rest of the Internet has been severed. Intercage, which has also done business under the name Atrivo, was knocked offline late Saturday night when the last upstream provider connecting it to the Internet's backbone, Pacific Internet Exchange, terminated Intercage's service. Intercage president Emil Kacperski said Pacific did not tell him why his company had been knocked offline, but he believes it was in response to pressure from Spamhaus, a volunteer-run antispam group, which has been highly critical of Intercage's business practices."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scam-Linked ISP Intercage / Atrivo Gets Shut Out

Comments Filter:
  • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2014@virtual-estates.net> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @11:54AM (#25122899) Homepage

    For a couple of hours?

    • by gnick (1211984) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:00PM (#25123013) Homepage

      Yup. The end of TFA was the painful (albeit obvious) part:

      Kacperski said Monday he was looking for a new service provider, but that he had no idea how long it will take him to get back online.

      "I've got to basically start all over," he said.

      Ugh. And the sad part is that, while he's scrambling to rebuild his "business", other people will be scrambling to fill in the void.

      • by BPPG (1181851) <bppg1986@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:23PM (#25123451)

        I for one welcome this chance for other spam vendors to engage in a little competition. It will be a wholly new playing field if/when Intercage re-emerges online, after previously holding a dominant position. Hopefully the free-market nature of Internet business will only encourage the production of more quality spam. The recipients of spam can only benefit from this new development.

        • by KillerBob (217953)

          They may have held a dominant position for hosting warez and porn sites, but this will barely make a dent in the spam scene, largely because most of it is coming from botnets.

        • I for one welcome ...

          What, no overlords?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Maybe he could apply for a government bailout. After all, spam does account for a significant portion of our economy
        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @01:16PM (#25124373)
          Yea, don't give them any ideas!

          Next thing you know `traceroute intercage.com` will look something like this:
          traceroute to intercage.com (128.102.0.99), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
          ...
          12 TKC-COMMUNI.hsa4.SanJose1.Level3.net (209.245.146.6) 36.243 ms 36.086 ms 36.397 ms
          13 n254-border-rtr-nisn-sip.arc.nasa.gov (198.123.41.9) 36.087 ms 36.086 ms 36.403 ms
          14 intercage.com (128.102.0.99) 36.432 ms 36.231 ms 36.891 ms
          • by sglines (543315)

            Hours?

            traceroute to intercage.com (216.255.187.125), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets ...

            9 UNITED-LAYER.ge-6-2-0.404.ar4.sfo1.gblx.net (64.214.131.174) 297.525 ms 187.031 ms 222.002 ms
            10 Vlan804.br01-200p-sfo.unitedlayer.com (209.237.224.173) 100.860 ms 100.121 ms 99.907 ms
            11 207.7.146.250 (207.7.146.250) 99.808 ms 256.817 ms 109.715 ms
            12 216.255.187.125-custblock.intercage.com (216.255.187.125) 99.896 ms 99.812 ms 100.443 ms

            Whois the offending provider?
            whois 207.7.146.250
            [Querying whois

    • by Rayeth (1335201)
      Still though one wonders how someone can be running an ISP with 78% hostile traffic and not realize something is up.
      • by Abreu (173023)

        Paid to look the other way?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by osu-neko (2604)

        Still though one wonders how someone can be running an ISP with 78% hostile traffic and not realize something is up.

        If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say. ;)

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:56PM (#25124041)

      For a couple of hours?

      For a day. They found a new upstream now, though, Unitedlayer, Inc., who obviously didn't pay any attention to the news (or just decided to ignore it):

      http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595 [cidr-report.org]

                  27595 INTERCAGE - InterCage, Inc.

                      Adjacency: 1 Upstream: 1 Downstream: 0
                      Upstream Adjacent AS list
                          AS23342 UNITEDLAYER - Unitedlayer, Inc.

  • by johannesg (664142)

    Hopefully it will cut down on the amount of spam...

  • That's why! (Score:3, Funny)

    by courteaudotbiz (1191083) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @11:58AM (#25122963) Homepage
    I was thinking to myself "God! My EMail account must be in problem, I didn't receive any spam since the weekend", then I got this really great offer, a guy who is going to give me 20% of 5 million US dollars to help him recover a lost bank account. Well that's perfect, I'm the one who's finally gonna be rich!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by bonehead (6382)

      That's awesome! Just imagine all the penis enlargement pills you'll be able to order now!

      • Dear Mr.. Bonehead,

        Please quit your suggestive advertising campaign for penis hardening and enlargement compounds or I shall be forced to complain to your ISP and have your account disabled.

        Thankyou.

      • Re:That's why! (Score:4, Informative)

        by oldspewey (1303305) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:05PM (#25123117)
        You're just going to go right ahead and buy penis enlargement pills with the money? You're not going to parlay it into something bigger first? I got an email just this morning informing me that SuperRoyalCasinoOnline.com is offering a 200% bonus on all deposits. That means you can buy three times more penis pills, with the potential for even bigger winnings.
        • by indifferent children (842621) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:10PM (#25123207)
          I got an email just this morning informing me that SuperRoyalCasinoOnline.com is offering a 200% bonus on all deposits.

          That's nothing. I got an offer this morning of $700B, with little oversight and no accountability. All I have to do is prove that I recklessly lost hundreds of billions of investor capital.

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by spun (1352)

            Look, you commie, if we don't pay our CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars, how can we be assured that we're getting the best? Do you know how long it might have taken to rape you all for hundreds of billions of dollars and then stick you with the bill for the rape exam kit if we had to make do with substandard CEOs?

            • by HTH NE1 (675604)

              Do you know how long it might have taken to rape you all for hundreds of billions of dollars and then stick you with the bill for the rape exam kit if we had to make do with substandard CEOs?

              Uh, about 23 minutes and 5 seconds?

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Culture20 (968837)
              Further proof that Communism is more efficient. It took the U.S. Government two centuries to do what the Soviets did to Czarist Russia in just months. /kidding
              In Soviet Russia ________
              • Re:That's why! (Score:5, Insightful)

                by frosty_tsm (933163) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @01:21PM (#25124481)

                In Soviet Russia ________

                The economy bails you out?

              • India is getting there.
                In capitalist India, CEOs beaten to death.

                India's labour minister declined to criticise the attack, saying it "should serve as a warning for management."

                http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/CEO_death_warning_for_managements_Govt/articleshow/3518772.cms

                • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

                  by Anonymous Coward
                  From the article:

                  Around two months ago, workers of the company were dismissed. The CEO of the company was reportedly beaten to death by a group of dismissed employees inside the premises after a compromise meeting called failed.

                  I like it. Firm but fair justice for incompetent managers.

          • by Nimey (114278)

            I'm laughing, but I wish that was funny. :-(

      • by azav (469988) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:17PM (#25123331) Homepage Journal

        Nigerian Mortgage Enlargement Pills.

        • by powerlord (28156)

          Nigerian Mortgage Enlargement Pills.

          Only buy them through the Canadian Poker GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS Pharmacy.

          Its cheaper.

    • I was thinking to myself "God! My EMail account must be in problem

      I think I've seen some of your recent work in my inbox. "Is your manhood in problem? Click here!"
  • Spamhaus, really? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ThanatosMinor (1046978) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:09PM (#25123177)
    I thought they were pretty much a passive organization that just lists domains and companies that are either irresponsible or actively take part in spam- or malware-related activity. It feels a little disingenuous to claim that they pressured a provider to drop a client.
    • Some truth to it... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:25PM (#25123485) Journal

      That's a good point, but when companies like AOL use Spamhaus, it means a huge number of email accounts are going to drop mail from anything in that list immediately.

      So while Spamhaus does "passively" list people there, let's not fool ourselves -- when they update that list, they cause people to be blocked. If an entire ISP is blocked from communicating with most email accounts out there, then that ISP is going to feel the pressure.

      • by geohump (782273) <geohump.gmail@com> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @01:48PM (#25124935) Journal

        Spamhaus was not the central issue or cause of the disconnection. If you read the article, you will see that there was a paper that was researched and published with regard to Intercage/Atrivo activities. The fact that I/A ended up on Spamhaus was simply a reflection of their activities. Not the cause of their disconnection. The network operators who each independently made a decision to not accomodate I/A traffic did so based on the merits of their own knowledge, some of which came from that paper and the rest of which came from their own experiences, and a tiny bit coming from spamhaus which, as noted elsewhere in this thread has a reputation of its own. (good and/or bad. )

    • by Zerth (26112) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:29PM (#25123585)

      While they don't do anything active, threatening to add you to their list for being the upstream of someone on their list is a little like saying "hey, nice knees. Shame if something happened to them". Enough people use Spamhaus, directly or indirectly, that being on their list can be equivalent to actively blocking them. It's not exactly a Usenet Death Penalty, but it'll cramp your style.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by xrayspx (13127)
      They list netblocks in a blacklist that other people use to filter, and if an ISP doesn't deal with the issue with that one block, Spamhaus will threaten to expand beyond the block of the individual offender, which might be like a /27, and blacklist the ISP's block, which might be a /18 or something.

      If a whole ISP is seen as a habitual offender and providing safe haven to unrepentant spammers, then SpamHaus will work their way upstream.
      • It's one thing to expand a block of the ISP is letting the offender move around within an expanded block, e.g. 1.2/16 has a customer 1.2.3/24 who asks to move to 1.2.4/24 after being blacklisted.

        However, if the real offenders are nicely sequestered in 1.2.3/24 then expanding the blacklist does not cause any more harm to the offenders and just makes people mad at you. It would be like Mexico canceling its extradition treaty with the United States because Texas executed someone after denying them their consu

        • by xrayspx (13127)
          You're right, it's not fair. The idea is that it's supposed to put pressure on the ISP to kick out the offenders, by making all their other customers complain that they can't deliver mail. If an ISP has 50 angry customers and can make it all go away by getting rid of one customer, then they're apt to do just that.

          I disagree even more with blacklisting peering partners. Just because Pacific peers with some other ISP doesn't mean that Pacific should know or care about anything regarding the other ISPs b
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by isdnip (49656)

            It worked the way it was supposed to! This is one reason why some misguided "neutrality" proposals fail -- they would prohibit blocking spammers.

            The whole idea is that you're not allowed to host spammers or malware. If you do, your ISP is kicked off. If some ISP provides you with upstream, they are kicked off. Anybody who hosts spammers directly or indirectly is kicked off, taking their customers with it. Not nice to customers, but customers should not sign up with spam-friendly ISPs.

            Free market law of

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Spamhaus, and most of the other anti-spam lists, are essentially boycott organizers.

      They may not do much personally, but they are advocates for action.

      -- Should you believe authority without question?

    • by Yomers (863527)
      They are evil. If you'd ever try to run for example shared hosting service - you'd know that.
  • beside spam (Score:2, Informative)

    by ionix5891 (1228718)

    they used to host quite alot of warez, and their whole range is blocked on wikipedia...

  • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:16PM (#25123313)
    I'm sure if they ask real nice on the news.admin.net-abuse.email and news.admin.net-abuse.sightings newsfroups, they'll be reconnected in no time :D
    • by BattyMan (21874)

      No, it's news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting anymore (n.a.n-a.email has been bot-spammed to uselessness),
      and all they'll get there is (their fair share of) jeers and other verbal abuse.
      At least for about as long as they (Atrivo)'ve been abusing the email system.
      And those guys (Morley Dotes & Inigo Montoya) will know how long that's been.

      "My name is Inigo Montoya. You spammed my father. Prepare to die."

  • I dislike spam as much as the next guy, but when we start letting ISP's decide what we can do with our domains it's the beginning of the end.

    A much better solution would be to devise and implement a secure authenticated email system. SMTP is so 60's...

    • by The Moof (859402)
      Terms of Use exist for every hosting provider and ISP I've ever used. And they all say generally the same thing: "Don't do anything that's legally questionable."

      So this comes off as more of "they're enforcing the terms" than "I'm bein' repressed!"
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      SMTP is not the problem.

      Authentication between sender and receiver doesn't belong in the envelope, and you can already do this using GPG or x509 certificates; however, this doesn't help spamming at all because you have to be able to send to people without having to know them first.

      Authentication between MTAs is also already possible using SASL; however, again, that doesn't help much because spam often comes via trusted peers, and you can't exclusively only accept mail from peers that you know before hand (s

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by eli867 (300724)

      Uh, authentication isn't the problem. The bad guys are running the mail server, not hacking into it.

    • So is manned spaceflight.
    • I reject email that doesn't have an authenticated HELO or MAIL FROM via SPF or heuristic default policy. While this cuts down on zombie spam, there is still a steady stream of spam from fully authenticated throwaway domains. These are automatically blacklisted after 20 spam, or sooner if I do it manually. But new authenticated spam domains are registered daily (I see at least 6 new ones every day).

      So while it is nice that spammers can't abuse someone elses domain to send me spam when email is authenticat

    • by Kalriath (849904) *

      Here we go...

      Your post advocates a

      (X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

      approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

      ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
      ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
      ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or col

  • by geohump (782273) <geohump.gmail@com> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:31PM (#25123607) Journal

    Email discussion about this modern version/equivalent of the "Internet Death penalty" (IDP) has been ongoing in the email list for network operators for the past several days. One side's consensus in this case seems to be "Intercage/Atrivo" has been a problem for years, has never adequately responded to abuse complaints, and is responding with a protestation of innocence that has all the credibility of 'The check is in the mail", "I'll only put it in an inch", and "of course I love you".

    There is the other side of the story with protestations of innocence. Unfortunately those cries are exactly what any party, guilty or innocent, would make. How to tell the difference?

    And what next?

    Will more ISP's/Hosters refuse to do business with "questionable" parties? Doesn't seem likely, but we can hope. Will the IDP be used on any other parties? Will there be damage to innocent parties? There are no easy answers or ready solutions for this issue.

    • by cpghost (719344) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @01:34PM (#25124747) Homepage

      Will more ISP's/Hosters refuse to do business with "questionable" parties?

      Some parties are always considered questionable, e.g. when they actively disrupt the Net. Those parties have always been cut-off, even in the pre-IP times: a misbehaving USENET host was quickly blacklisted and it had a very hard time to find peers. This is "technical questionability".

      Other parties are sometimes considered questionable, e.g. when they provide content that is deemed questionable in some areas and cultures (say, e.g. pr0n). This is "social/cultural questionability".

      Cutting someone off because of technical reasons is absolutely justifiable, because not cutting him off would disrupt the system itself. Cutting someone off because of social/cultural reasons is not necessary from a technical point of view, and is open to political debate.

      Now, Net Neutrality is essentially a political (and economical) debate, and has nothing to do with the first category (technical constraints). Cutting off Intercage/Atrivo seems to me like belonging to the first category: they were actively disrupting the Net on the technical level, and they had to go. IMHO.

      • by Raenex (947668)

        Now, Net Neutrality is essentially a political (and economical) debate, and has nothing to do with the first category (technical constraints). Cutting off Intercage/Atrivo seems to me like belonging to the first category: they were actively disrupting the Net on the technical level, and they had to go. IMHO.

        There is no clear dividing line. Spam is largely a social problem with some technical consequences. People don't like receiving spam (social), and the load causes problems for administrators (technical). Same with network neutrality: A few people running BitTorrent can ruin network utility for everybody else on the last mile. It's a technical problem to handle the traffic in a way that society perceives as fair.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      There is the other side of the story with protestations of innocence. Unfortunately those cries are exactly what any party, guilty or innocent, would make. How to tell the difference?

      Well, there's the 10+ years of evidence of lots of spam and viruses originating from there, spammers continuing to operate after multiple abuse reports were sent in, spammers operating from different IPs in the same range after the owner said he disconnected them, and very little evidence of any legitimate traffic from the same

    • by Renraku (518261)

      Not quite the same at all.

      In P2P, the end users are to blame. In this, the end users are to blame, but the ISP SHOULD be cutting them off due to abuse reports, but is not.

      Comcast will cut you off for abuse if they receive enough hate your way via email from the companies that you could potentially be ripping off, why not entire ISPs?

  • by Em Ellel (523581) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:57PM (#25124069)

    Ok, for the record I am happy they are offline, but the devil's advocate in me does make me wonder about impact of this on net-neutrality.

    Consider this, a bandwidth provider cuts off certain traffic because it disproves of this traffic and feels most of it is illegal and it is bad for their business.

    Is it Pacific Internet Exchange cutting off access to Intercage because they believe most of the sites (70+ %) involves spam or some other illegal acvitivy?

    Or is it Comcast cutting off access to P2P protocols because they believe most of it (98+ %) involves copyright infringement or some other illegal activity?

    I am all for getting rid of the spam and malware, but something about this method is setting off red flags.

    Or maybe I am over-thinking it.

    • by Phizzle (1109923)
      You insensitive clods! Where will the people get their p3n1s pi11s now?!?!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by frosty_tsm (933163)

      Differences:

      Comcast does it secretly, Pacific did it publicly (or at least, obviously).
      Comcast targets a lot of individuals, Pacific cut off a provider who couldn't / wouldn't police their network.
      Comcast has the public's hate. Pacific is seen as doing the public a favor.

      Not saying these are valid reasons, but they are reasons to contemplate. There are probably more that I didn't think of.

    • Let the police determine what is and what is not illegal.

      In the case of civil torts, like some copyright, spam, and the like:
      If it's within your country, use the court system. That's what it is there for. If the RIAA knew with a high degree of certainty that I was hosting songs, they could get an injunction against me then get me tossed in jail for contempt if I violated it.

      If it's in another country, then you might have to take the law into your own hands. If I'm Comcast and some ISP in another country

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by erroneus (253617)

        Law enforcement won't get involved unless someone hacks Sarah Palin's email again.

    • by dbitch (553938)

      Because they've gotten hammered in Nanog over hosting Intercage/Attrivo. And you can say all you want about the Congress-critters and their "regulation" about net neutrality, but unless they want to make their own US-only internet, they're going to have to play by the rules of the big dogs (those who own ASes, many of which aren't in the US). And the big dogs on Nanog aren't happy about it, and last month some threatened BGP-blackholing (therefore completely making them disappear) for their particular ASes.

    • Ok, for the record I am happy they are offline, but the devil's advocate in me does make me wonder about impact of this on net-neutrality.
      Consider this, a bandwidth provider cuts off certain traffic because it disproves of this traffic and feels most of it is illegal and it is bad for their business.
      Is it Pacific Internet Exchange cutting off access to Intercage because they believe most of the sites (70+ %) involves spam or some other illegal acvitivy?

      It's not that at all.
      Pacific Internet Exchange

      • by Em Ellel (523581)

        It's not that at all.

        Pacific Internet Exchange cut off Intercage because Spamhaus listed Intercage, Pacific, and all of Pacific's legit customers if any, so none could send or receive email.

        Net neutrality? Nope. Nothing to do with that. If Pacific wanted to stay in business they had to avoid being listed by SBL. Once listed they had to resolve that problem or they would have no legit customers left. So it's pure self interest on the part of Pacific. As it should be.

        Intercage has apparently arranged new connectivity, that new ISP will now be listed by SBL and have to get rid of Intercage of avoid it. The circle continues. You cannot cash spammers and miscreant's checks and stay in the ISP business. Not anymore. Those days are over. Hooray for Spamhaus.

        You see a difference where I see the biggest similarity in these scenarios. Both Spamhous and MAFIAA blackmail their victims into doing what they want by threat of financial impact. Comcast being sued by people that control their content is probably a much bigger financial threat than Spamhous blocking email.

        Just to illustrate the point:

        PirateBay has apparently arranged new connectivity, that new ISP will now be targeted by MPAA and have to get rid of PirateBay to avoid it. The circle continues. You cannot cash copyright pirate's checks and stay in the ISP business. Not anymore. Those days are over. Hooray for MPAA.

        -Em

        • Just to illustrate the point: PirateBay has apparently arranged new connectivity, that new ISP will now be targeted by MPAA and have to get rid of PirateBay to avoid it. The circle continues. You cannot cash copyright pirate's checks and stay in the ISP business. Not anymore. Those days are over. Hooray for MPAA.

          Oh, hardly.

          Piratebay clearly doesn't host any copyright materials, their role is the same as google's, that of a search engine. They don't cash any checks. Aren't they all essentially volunte

          • by Raenex (947668)

            Piratebay clearly doesn't host any copyright materials, their role is the same as google's, that of a search engine. They don't cash any checks. Aren't they all essentially volunteers?

            No, they aren't just like Google, and yes, they do gain financially. Their primary reason for existence is to point to illegal copies of copyrighted works, hence the name "Pirate Bay". They don't try to hide their purpose -- they flaunt it. Google is a generic search engine.

            As for money, they are very secretive about their operating costs and revenue. They get money in from advertisements. On a site as big as theirs, do you seriously think they don't come out ahead? Why all the secrecy?

            From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

          • by Em Ellel (523581)

            Piratebay clearly doesn't host any copyright materials, their role is the same as google's, that of a search engine. They don't cash any checks. Aren't they all essentially volunteers?

            Deliberately or not, you are misunderstanding the situation. Let me draw clearer parallels:

            * PirateBay pays their ISP for bandwidth - so their ISP is indeed cashing their checks
            * Intercage pays their ISP for bandwidth - again "cashing their checks" as you put it.

            * MAFIAA exerts financial blackmail pressure on PirateBay's ISP
            * Spamhaus exerts financial blackmail pressure on Intercage's ISP

            * PirateBay's ISP drops them. How dare they!!!
            * Intercage's ISP drops them. Hooray ?!?!?!

            So, what we are saying is that i

    • by nelsonen (126144)

      There is a difference between a business deciding it doesn't want one specific customers business, and Comcast, which is most locations a government protected monopoly, messing with traffic is pretty much is mandated to carry.

      Businesses always have the ability to refuse customers, as long as it doesn't break any laws. And I have seen no suggestion that PIE or anyone else who has refused their business is breaking any laws.

      Comcast was not providing what their "contract" said it should, and got caught.

  • by ionix5891 (1228718) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @01:24PM (#25124535)

    A bit over a week ago Brian Krebs, who writes the "Security Fix" blog in the Washington Post, went public [washingtonpost.com] with a number of allegations about Atrivo and its activities. As a result, many of Atrivo's own upstream connectivity providers disconnected them.

  • Check out the NANOG thread on this here: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg11573.html [merit.edu].

  • ...this explains why my spam numbers are down by half this week.

    Last week, average was about 350 daily rejects. This week, 150.

    Nice.

Loose bits sink chips.

Working...