Australia's Largest ISP Redefines Spam 304
cpudney writes "According to this article in NEWS.com.au, Telstra BigPond, Australia's largest ISP will monitor its customers' e-mails and suspend the accounts of users suspected of sending spam, viruses or denial-of-service attacks. Under changes to its Acceptable Use Policy, BigPond will investigate cable and ADSL Internet customers sending more than 20 e-mails in a 10-minute period, and BigPond management "may suspend the (user's) account while the customer is contacted" if they are suspected of sending spam. Previously, BigPond's definition of spam was held to be 400 messages sent over a 15-minute period and now it's changed to 20 e-mails over 10 minutes. Internet Society of Australia president Tony Hill said BigPond's new definition of spam was very restrictive and he was concerned the limit had been set too low for legitimate e-mail users."
Oh telstra you dorks (Score:3, Insightful)
Log on, send 30 or so emails in 2 minutes, and log off.
Then wonder why they can't email again next week.
This does seem a bit restrictive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Time Scale Too Small (Score:5, Insightful)
I can very easily go through 20 emails in 10 minutes just because I might be having one of those back-and-forth email conversations. I don't know if I could do 400 in a 15-minute period, unless I was running a mailing list (well, which I do, but that's why I use "personal" business ISPs).
This sort of metric just seems extremely silly. Is someone putting pressure on BigPond, or is one of their executives being an idiot?
Mailing list servers (Score:4, Insightful)
their home linux boxes.
If things have been set up to use the ISP's mail servers as relays, which you might do to save on bandwidth, it's going to get sticky. (Or does one message with a trillion addresses count as one message?)
Re:This does seem a bit restrictive. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a side benefit, this will help them help their customers that get hit with email worms... some people may not even know they are spamming, no?
SpamCop paying $30K / year to fight DDoS attacks (Score:5, Insightful)
The spammers are doing everything they can to squeeze the anti-spammers out. They use frivolous lawsuits (aka Mark Felstein and his porn spamming backers) or DDOS attacks that either knock the anti-spam resources off completely or increase the costs so that no hobbyist can run them.
And while all this is going on, the law enforcement agencies are doing nothing to counter the clearly illegal acts of the spammers.
And ISPs are doing NOTHING to reduce the number of zombies on their networks. So the DDOS attacks continue.
Nice going.
It's only a matter of time when someone (Al Queda?) will use the zombie network for something that will truly be noticed.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers
Re:They are nuts - what about regular POP clients? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Time Scale Too Small (Score:1, Insightful)
That would avoid people with occasional burst, while making it uneconomical to run a spam business.
Re:Honest question? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if I was stupid enough to apply for one I don't think theres a issurer who's stupid enough to give me one.
Not about Spam, about using Spam to gouge (Score:5, Insightful)
What it will sneak through under the cover of Spam hysteria is the following.
1) It will force budget business users onto more expensive corporate accounts.
2) It will stop people batching their email correspondence to miminise online time which in turn will reduce peak load on telstra and also bring in more money.
3) Less nasty but equally beneficient to Telstra it will allow them to stop worm riddled machines bogging down their email servers (Telstra are facing massive damages over the near collapse of their email infrastructure and associated business losses).
I know it when i see it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh telstra you dorks (Score:2, Insightful)
There are so many steps along the way to sending and delivering email that if you were concerned about privacy, then don't use email, or start encrypting it...
As a network professional... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Honest question? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SpamCop paying $30K / year to fight DDoS attack (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. But fighting the spammers won't prevent that. The only way to prevent that is to secure the majority of on-line PCs so they can't be zombified.
Are They Really Dumb? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're not really really stupid, they might have thought: Gee, I wonder if there's any way to tell what's 3 standard deviations above the mean as far as peak mail sending rate is? Do we have, anywhere, a listing of all the emails that have been sent by our users? Preferably arranged in chronoligical order, with timestamps? If we had that, why all we'd have to do is a little grep and wc action, toss in some particularly ugly perl to aggregate the results, and we'd be able to figure out what normal is. From there, we'd be able to figure out what weird is. Once we know what weird is, we'll know which accounts we should take a closer look at.
I've gotta think they figured that out. After all, they have to have figured out how to count the mails per minute per user to be able to implement this (and their former rule), right?
Of course, it's possible they really are too dumb to look at their own server logs. Maybe they pulled this number out of some business weenie's ass during one of those catered lunch meetings in the big glass windowed room with the collossal oak table. If this is the case, then they'll get false positives by the cartload and they'll quickly be swamped in the acrid stench of their own foolishness.
I find the latter a little implausible. Telstra may be a big evil monopoly, but I don't think they're a big evil imbecilic monopoly.
Bigpond partly to blame, too (Score:5, Insightful)
Bigpond could install heavy default firewalling (especially ports 80 and 25) to protect against people who install default operating systems with Christmas tree options or are infected with spamware so they readily become spam relays and force customers to use ISP provided gateway servers. Better yet, ask customers to knowingly switch off their ISP firewalling if they're providing a legitimate Internet service. (and therefore prove that they know what they're doing)
The end days of open-slather unfirewalled broadband accounts for "Mum and Dad" Internet users is long overdue.
The conspiracy theorists claim that because Bigpond charges customers per Mb for both incoming and outgoing traffic, they really don't care if their customers are open-proxy spam relays because they'll be hit with a bill for the traffic "they've" used at the end of it. That's probably extreme, it's more than likely that they just don't care or have the technical/human resources to do anything about it...
Re:This does seem a bit restrictive. (Score:5, Insightful)
From: Joe.Blow@bigpond.com.au
To: Entire Address Book
Subject: New address
Re:"Virii" DOES NOT EXIST. BZZZT. defcon4 (Score:1, Insightful)
No, the pedants are the idiots who tried to puff up their egos and appear "educated" through using the moronic pseudo-Latin pseudo-word "virii" and who just got those overinflated egos punctured.
Hint: if you're going to spread on airs by using the "correct" word, at least take the trouble to get it right.
"Virii" indeed.
Re:More slashdot sensationalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This does seem a bit restrictive. (Score:2, Insightful)
People with dialup who want to keep their only phone line free for incoming calls.
Yes, it's easy for those of us who have broadband (or, I suppose, those of us who don't get [m]any incoming calls,) to forget about the common hazards of dialup internet access. This isn't stone knives and bearskins; it's a legitimate choice being made by many people around the world who just want to get online and sample what the internet has to offer. A policy that has the potential to discriminate against legitimate customers like this needs to be used carefully, or maybe reworked.
Free Internet No More? (Score:1, Insightful)
- Mr. S.R.
Re:A good idea for new customers. (Score:3, Insightful)
it shouldn't be about stupid arbitrary restrictions or conditions for all users, just about identification and elimination of offenders with no collateral damage.