McColo and SPAM
frnkblk at iname.com
Fri Dec 5 21:33:03 CST 2008
We experienced exactly no decrease with the McColo shut down a few weeks
back, even though we receive 2M+ messages per day. It's interesting that
each service provider's spam populations are as different as they are. Some
experienced gigantic decreases, others didn't. And it's not like we have
just one domain.
I know MessageLabs examines spam rates per industry type.
From: Peter Serwe [mailto:peter.serwe at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:57 PM
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: McColo and SPAM
Certainly, I have seen a perceptual, yet completely subjective increase.
I know major operators who have claimed to see a gigantic decrease.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Skywing <Skywing at valhallalegends.com>
> McColo hosted the command and control servers for spam botnets and didn't
originate spam directly, at least primarily, according to my understanding.
> - S
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Serwe [mailto:peter.serwe at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:49 PM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: McColo and SPAM
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:34 AM, <nanog-request at nanog.org> wrote:
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:14:08 +0100
>> From: Revolver Onslaught <revolver.onslaught at gmail.com>
>> Subject: McColo and SPAM
>> To: nanog <nanog at merit.edu>
>> Message-ID: <49397D80.701 at gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> Since McColo closed, we noticed the spam was far more intensive than
>> However, it seems the amount of spam is similar than than before.
>> Do you feel the same ?
>> Many thanks,
> It would seem that the sources of SPAM have merely moved since McColo
> was shut down and it's going to
> take some time for everyone's blackhole routes and RBL's to catch up.
> I have personally noticed a higher
> delivered spam content in my own email accounts.
More information about the NANOG