Should Servers Deal w/ DNS Spam or Shouldn't They.. POLL

General talk about EFnet

Moderators: Website/Forum Admins, EFnet/General Moderators

How should servers deal w/ dns spam ?

They shouldn't, what's the big deal ?
32
67%
DNS SPAM is out of control /Kline Offender
16
33%
 
Total votes: 48
Tibar
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Brooklyn,NY // London, UK

Should Servers Deal w/ DNS Spam or Shouldn't They.. POLL

Postby Tibar » Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:34 pm

I'm very torn on this whole thing. Part of me thinks that a lot of DNS spam out there is horrible. Then again, EFNet / IRC pretty much created DNS Spam and what does a long vhost really hurt ? I'd like to see what users and other oper/admins have to say about this subject. Oh and vote on the poll, and leave your comments..
User avatar
0versight
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:52 am
Location: Cen Cal

Postby 0versight » Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:58 pm

How does it affect anything? If its causing problems then sure clean it up, but if it just gets on people's nerves then a different approach should be thought out.
IRC is how I deal with reality.
Silence
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:37 am
Location: Sweden

Postby Silence » Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:31 am

Hey,

DNS pollution is a waste of resources.
Hardly something desireable...

Imo, its dns abuse, not following the rfc guidelines...
Im not rfc anal, but I think common sense is a good guideline here.


/j
admin *.xs4all.nl
User avatar
munky
Site Admin
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Postby munky » Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:42 am

i can see it being a waste of IPs, but which rfc is it breaking?
In God we trust,
Everyone else must have an X.509 certificate.
User avatar
Osc
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 8:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Osc » Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:13 pm

see http://spamcalc.net/docs/dnsspam.php

it would appear that the rfc in question is 1034.
irc.he.net Notice -- Osc (osc@irc.packetmonkeys.com) is now an operator
<CHANFIX> You're now logged in with the following flags: ADMIN.
<OCF> Authentication successful. Welcome, Osc.
User avatar
deww
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 7:17 pm

Postby deww » Fri Apr 30, 2004 2:19 pm

From the page Osc posted:
What's important here is what the administrators of the IRC server(s) think.

Tibar, it seems to me that you already know what you want. You're concerned enough to raise a question about it, which I think means that you want to side with dealing with it on your server. On a side note, should this same question be raised about silly spoofed hosts? No IPs are used up, but the point is that the hosts remain silly, and that's the point of why it's considered "pollution." And personally, I don't care. I've managed to learn to mentally filter out hostnames of people joining and parting the channel. 8)
User avatar
lucy
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Location: graceland
Contact:

Postby lucy » Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:13 pm

i know its difficult if you have shell accounts to look through the list and find vhosts that wont be klined or blocked from using servers because of the dns spam. i know i've tried very hard to pick the simplest vhosts at times, and still they arent allowed because of dns spam.
but... servers have the right to do this, so theres no need for me to get my panties in a wad over it. just find another server thats not so strict. we do have plenty to choose from these days :)
although it is probably frustrating to the regular user that cant get on a server for dns spam, when the opers and their friends on the servers have spoofs that would be considered dns spam
prefect
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Oslo

Postby prefect » Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:29 pm

/foreach channel /ban *!*@*.*.*.*.*, problem solved
User avatar
munky
Site Admin
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Postby munky » Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:32 pm

that would include most of *.cox.net, *.verizon.net, *.videotron.ca, *.charter.com, ...
you get the point
all in all, 720/3000 clients on servercentral

a more realistic solution is to dline /24s of shell providers that provide the dnsspam
In God we trust,
Everyone else must have an X.509 certificate.
leeh
ircd-ratbox coder
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:43 pm
Location: UK

Postby leeh » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:13 pm

deww wrote:On a side note, should this same question be raised about silly spoofed hosts? No IPs are used up, but the point is that the hosts remain silly, and that's the point of why it's considered "pollution."
I personally think theyre dumb too, especially considering spoofs are supposed to be about protecting opers from being personally attacked when maintaining the server ;-).
Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Postby Hardy » Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:03 pm

leeh wrote:
deww wrote:On a side note, should this same question be raised about silly spoofed hosts? No IPs are used up, but the point is that the hosts remain silly, and that's the point of why it's considered "pollution."
I personally think theyre dumb too, especially considering spoofs are supposed to be about protecting opers from being personally attacked when maintaining the server ;-).
I agree 100%, spoofs should be restricted to opers only, because of the work they do on the irc-server. I dont see why i should spoof a user so he can hide his real ip, and my server will get hit because of it. If someone wants to "hide" their real ip spend $5/month to buy a bnc somewhere.. and if you care enough about not showing your real ip you sure as hell should care enough to use so litle money on irc.. because you sure as hell dont pay to use our irc-server :)

And about he subject, dns polution, i couldnt care less what hostname the users have.. and about it "using resources" .. HAH!
-- Hardy
Administrator: irc.underworld.no
Services Administrator
http://www.efnet.org admin/staff
Tibar
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Brooklyn,NY // London, UK

hmmm..

Postby Tibar » Sun May 02, 2004 5:41 am

Well, after I give a vote to my staff and I started to look at the lack RFC compliant ISP's no less users. EFNet kinda created the phenomenon of the vhosts why not let the dorks have their fun. If it makes someone that happy or they feel that cool for having their : bob@i.am.so.damn.cool.because.i.do.stupid.shit.and.have.this.vhost.to.prove.it.com

then so be it. that extra 400k a month because of long hostnames isn't going to break the I'm a spammer!. Anyway, I thought this might be a good discussion as I have never seen it brought up before. Well thanks for listening and letting me know how you feel.

-tibar
Silence
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:37 am
Location: Sweden

Postby Silence » Sun May 02, 2004 12:18 pm

Hey,

Obviously the same rules apply for opers. Since we run spamcalc on efnet.xs4all.nl (the software used to filter DNS polluted clients), we arent going to allow our operators to use silly spoofs. Its the principal of not using the hostname to spam that applys here.

I do understand how this might be frustrating for users that cant get online because of this. However, I think they should contact the shelladmin and ask him to add atleast a few none-provocative and none-spamish hostnames. If this isnt possible, users are more than welcome to request an I-line as long as they clearly state the reason why they want an exception from the DNS pollution policy we have on *.xs4all.nl.

Like lucy said, there are more than enough servers for people who want to get online with (vanity)hostnames. Just use a server that accepts them...

PS. Tibar: The topic has been brought up on several occasions :) Its a neverending discussion :) DS
admin *.xs4all.nl
Tibar
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Brooklyn,NY // London, UK

....

Postby Tibar » Tue May 04, 2004 2:55 am

Thanks for the input Silence. The only thing is that if you know me, i'm the last thing from being a vanity person yet I don't require my opers to have compliant spoofs as long as they're not super long ( because i'm lazy and have to cut and paste or type the damn host ). I was very anti dns spam but, now that i've thought about it more and looked at most commercial ISP's i've decided that as long as the use of a non RFC compliant hostname isn't being used for Abuse, then so be it. Let them have their fun.

My 2 cents,
User avatar
HM2K
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:34 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby HM2K » Wed May 05, 2004 12:48 am

I am sure this was discussed previously, maybe it was in the old forum, I am not 100% sure. Might be worth a search.

Anywho, I don't agree with banning hosts, no matter how rediculous they are, i mean after all, I have seen some opers with worse hosts than irc users...

I personally don't think its an opers grounds to be banning hosts that have a certain characteristic, as I think this would be unfair.

Though I do think that opers should speak to admins about stupid vhosts, I mean why have, rofl.lol.omg.my.mum.is.so.shit.com when you can have. lame.shit.com or something...

I guess its difficult to decide which is the best route to go down, however I do believe that opers getting as involved as banning hosts because they consider it as spam is rediculous, surly if an provider wishes to waste their shells on shitty hosts, its up to them, or ripe etc, and NOT an irc oper...

NOTE: Appoligies in advance if this sounds like bull shit, i've been drinking ;)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest