🚀 go-pugleaf

In <56fr9o$d9i@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.eng.sun.com (Ed
Falk) writes:

>There has been no spam from Best.com for quite some time.  I am
>removing Best from my filters.

Did BBBIIIZZZ.COM go away?
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@ether.rahul.net>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>

dhesi@ether.rahul.net wrote:

: In <56fr9o$d9i@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.eng.sun.com (Ed
: Falk) writes:

: >There has been no spam from Best.com for quite some time.  I am
: >removing Best from my filters.

: Did BBBIIIZZZ.COM go away?

Best's abuse person told me that it has moved from greatbasin.net, 
but I just ran a traceroute and got this:

shellx> traceroute big.bbbiiizzz.com                    
traceroute to big.bbbiiizzz.com (207.33.109.3), 30 hops max, 40 byte pack
ets
 1  core-fddi3-0.mv.best.net (206.86.0.1)  3 ms  2 ms  21 ms
 2  core1-hssi3-0.san-francisco.best.net (206.86.228.90)  4 ms  4 ms  3 m
s
 3  gw2-sf-tlg.tlg.net (140.174.125.2)  4 ms  4 ms  6 ms
 4  tlg-cust-link.tlg.net (140.174.36.2)  28 ms  26 ms  14 ms
 5  rno-ms0.greatbasin.net (206.14.169.1)  14 ms  12 ms  20 ms
 6  rno-ms0.greatbasin.net (206.14.169.1)  13 ms !H  21 ms !H  12 ms !H

I'm not sure, but I =think= the !H readings in the final link
indicate that, while dns still points to greatbasin.net, the
server big.bbbiiizzz.com is down for the count.  

From what the abuse person said, getting rid of big.bbbiiizzz.com 
and other spam sites Best inherited from TLG has been a serious 
legal headache because the contracts TLG wrote with those sites 
did not allow Best to impose a new AUP on them easily, or cut them 
off for spamming.  Getting rid of big.bbbiiizzz.com was, I gather,
a major effort for the lawyers, which is doubtless why it took
so long. <wry grin>

I wouldn't mind an explanation from someone who knows -- the Abuse
person or whoever -- about the exact current status of 
big.bbbiiizzz.com.  But I think she was levelling with me, and
from what I've heard, Best is in serious consultations with their 
lawyers to write a new, tough AUP and TOS addressing spam and
net abuse.  I've got some real hopes that this will be a good
policy, the kind I can support and point other small and
medium-sized ISPs to as a model for their efforts to deal with
the same problem.

Catherine

Catherine Hampton <ariel@nntp.best.com> wrote:
<stuff about BBBIIIZZZ.COM snipped>
>
>shellx> traceroute big.bbbiiizzz.com                    
>traceroute to big.bbbiiizzz.com (207.33.109.3), 30 hops max, 40 byte pack
> 1  core-fddi3-0.mv.best.net (206.86.0.1)  3 ms  2 ms  21 ms
> 2  core1-hssi3-0.san-francisco.best.net (206.86.228.90)  4 ms  4 ms  3ms
> 3  gw2-sf-tlg.tlg.net (140.174.125.2)  4 ms  4 ms  6 ms
> 4  tlg-cust-link.tlg.net (140.174.36.2)  28 ms  26 ms  14 ms
> 5  rno-ms0.greatbasin.net (206.14.169.1)  14 ms  12 ms  20 ms
> 6  rno-ms0.greatbasin.net (206.14.169.1)  13 ms !H  21 ms !H  12 ms !H
>
>I'm not sure, but I =think= the !H readings in the final link
>indicate that, while dns still points to greatbasin.net, the
>server big.bbbiiizzz.com is down for the count.  

Nope.  The connection for my workplace has always shown up
with the three !H indicators.  I know that we use a socks
proxy server on the machine that shows this, perhaps
that is what's creating the !H (No Hit? No Host?)
Perhaps they are working on ways to filter out mailbombs
and other hazards of mass mailing more efficently?

Either way, the site here is definately active.

Scratch

In article <57cutp$3ks@shellx.best.com>, scratch@best.com (Scratch) wrote:
>Catherine Hampton <ariel@nntp.best.com> wrote:

>>I'm not sure, but I =think= the !H readings in the final link
>>indicate that, while dns still points to greatbasin.net, the
>>server big.bbbiiizzz.com is down for the count.  
>
>Nope.  The connection for my workplace has always shown up
>with the three !H indicators.  I know that we use a socks
>proxy server on the machine that shows this, perhaps
>that is what's creating the !H (No Hit? No Host?)
>Perhaps they are working on ways to filter out mailbombs
>and other hazards of mass mailing more efficently?

I believe the !H messages are an artifact of the SGI/IRIX
traceroute implementation. It means "Host Unreachable" which
is indeed what NT Traceroute shows:

f:\>tracert big.bbbiiizzz.com

Tracing route to big.bbbiiizzz.com [207.33.109.3]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  2   150 ms   140 ms   141 ms  router1-eth0.store.best.net [205.149.172.1]
  3   140 ms   191 ms   140 ms  core-serial4-0.mv.best.net [205.149.170.41]
  4   201 ms   150 ms   180 ms  core1-hssi3-0.san-francisco.best.net 
[206.86.22.90]
  5   150 ms   140 ms   160 ms  gw2-sf-tlg.tlg.net [140.174.125.2]
  6   150 ms   170 ms   161 ms  tlg-cust-link.tlg.net [140.174.36.2]
  7   150 ms   161 ms   150 ms  rno-ms0.greatbasin.net [206.14.169.1]
  8  rno-ms0.greatbasin.net [206.14.169.1]  reports:
 Destination host unreachable.

As you point out, this doesn't mean that big.bbbiiizz.com is out
of business - their server may simply be firewalled.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <57d666$r49@nntp1.best.com>, Malcolm Hoar <malch@malch.com> wrote:
>I believe the !H messages are an artifact of the SGI/IRIX
>traceroute implementation. It means "Host Unreachable" which
>is indeed what NT Traceroute shows:

unreachable _By_Traceroute_.
don't mean the machine isn't there.

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------
phil@bolthole.com
"Ya see? It's just like I always said: you can get more with a kind word and a
2b'4, than you get with just a kind word" -- Marcus, Babylon 5 ranger

In article <57e00b$ejj@shellx.best.com>, bolthole@best.com (Philip Brown) wrote:
>In article <57d666$r49@nntp1.best.com>, Malcolm Hoar <malch@malch.com> wrote:
>>I believe the !H messages are an artifact of the SGI/IRIX
>>traceroute implementation. It means "Host Unreachable" which
>>is indeed what NT Traceroute shows:
>
>unreachable _By_Traceroute_.
>don't mean the machine isn't there.

Hehehe. I think you missed my disclaimer at the end of the post .....

That pesky fine print ;-)

>>As you point out, this doesn't mean that big.bbbiiizz.com is out
>>of business - their server may simply be firewalled.


-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~