Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


ChicagoVPS spammers - Page 3
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

ChicagoVPS spammers

13

Comments

  • CVPS_ChrisCVPS_Chris Member, Patron Provider

    @MattKC, the email does not violate any laws. This past email that was sent, accidentally was sent to the wrong group of clients, so yes we are at fault on this email.

    Anything prior, was compliant.

  • @cvps_chris It does violate the law. I already pointed out what is wrong with the message. If you don't understand the law then don't send such messages. Refer to a lawyer then for a clear understanding to the law you are breaking.

  • CVPS_ChrisCVPS_Chris Member, Patron Provider

    @aggresivenetworks, sounds good. Thanks

  • Received my unsubscribe confirmation now.

  • @nekki how long did that take to get?

  • aggressivenetworks said: how long did that take to get?

    Just a touch over 24 hours.

  • aggressivenetworks said: It does violate the law. I already pointed out what is wrong with the message. If you don't understand the law then don't send such messages. Refer to a lawyer then for a clear understanding to the law you are breaking.

    I suspect it'd do you some good to read the law itself as well. Especially considering you're so aggressive about claiming they're in violation without a specific citation.

  • edited January 2015

    @rallias I actually know what the law states. I read it front to back. I already stated what the violations are in accordance with law. http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business. Have a nice day and try again!

  • jbiloh said: For the list of top 100 spam networks please refer to: http://www.senderbase.org/static/spam/

    At last check we were not listed, despite being much larger than almost all hosting companies on that list.

    What about this list?
    https://cleantalk.org/blacklists/AS36352

    Of your 21,603 Detected IPs 19,979 of them were spam. 92.48% Spam Rate.

    This makes you #21 on a list of 300.

    https://cleantalk.org/blacklists/asn

  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran

    mojeda said: What about this list? https://cleantalk.org/blacklists/AS36352

    Of your 21,603 Detected IPs 19,979 of them were spam. 92.48% Spam Rate.

    This makes you #21 on a list of 300.

    https://cleantalk.org/blacklists/asn

    I have a hard time understanding that website. What does it consider spam? Do the records ever reset?

    It seems to indicate we have 20,000 IPs on our network when we actually have closer to 800,000.

  • @jbiloh said:
    It seems to indicate we have 20,000 IPs on our network when we actually have closer to 800,000.

    Probably because the other 780,000 IPs have never been used and just fasely justified to get more IPs

    Thanked by 1aggressivenetworks
  • CVPS_ChrisCVPS_Chris Member, Patron Provider

    Spencer said: Probably because the other 780,000 IPs have never been used and just fasely justified to get more IPs

    ChicagoVPS itself uses more than 40k IPs.

  • Yup, not for long anymore. I'm already since weeks in talk with ARIN about falsely justified allocations by CC.

  • @Nyr said:
    This time they are, since CVPS is using NWNX's SMTP to spam and they knowingly allow this.

    Isn't NWNX owned by Chris? CC is part of VSNX, not NWNX.

    @William said:
    Yup, not for long anymore. I'm already since weeks in talk with ARIN about falsely justified allocations by CC.

    I have a very hard time believing that.

  • @William said:
    Yup, not for long anymore. I'm already since weeks in talk with ARIN about falsely justified allocations by CC.

    You and what army though?

  • William said: Yup, not for long anymore. I'm already since weeks in talk with ARIN about falsely justified allocations by CC.

    With the rate of IPV4 deletion, and legitimate users potentially being unable to have access to these IPs in the future, I hope you're serious. It's disgusting, capitalistic behavior to hoard IPs with the current issues surrounding them.

    Kind regards,

    Alex

  • @alexh said:
    Alex

    I agree, although from as business point of view from ARIN, they're getting cash for potentially unused IPs were as they wouldn't get any funds if they had them on hand..

    it's disgusting yes, but it's funding then massively..

  • LeeLee Veteran

    There should be more focus on those that have millions of IP's, largely unused such as unversities. There are so many organisations sitting on massive allocations combined that could be brought back in for use.

    Thanked by 3mpkossen netomx Cikon
  • W1V_Lee said: There should be more focus on those that have millions of IP's, largely unused such as unversities. There are so many organisations sitting on massive allocations combined that could be brought back in for use.

    I completely agree. A good example of this: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-165-197-0-0-1.html

  • @W1V_Lee said:
    There should be more focus on those that have millions of IP's, largely unused such as unversities. There are so many organisations sitting on massive allocations combined that could be brought back in for use.

    For some reason the UK work and employment office (job centre) had a /8 and they're not using any of it.

  • gsrdgrdghdgsrdgrdghd Member
    edited January 2015

    alexh said: I completely agree. A good example of this: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-165-197-0-0-1.html

    Thats not really a good example. Pepsi is a big company with 185,000 employees, 131,072 IP addresses make sense for them. For a better example of waste look at the MIT. They have 16,777,216 IP addresses for a total of 23,369 people (academic staff+students+undergraduates+postgraduates). That's 718 IP addresses per person.

    Thanked by 1mpkossen
  • NyrNyr Community Contributor, Veteran

    @mpkossen said:
    Isn't NWNX owned by Chris? CC is part of VSNX, not NWNX.

    Yeah, I got confused with that.

  • MunMun Member

    @Nyr said:
    Yeah, I got confused with that.

    I wonder why... I mean they are both 4 letters both include N and X.

  • NWNX = New Waveconnect Network Exchange
    VSNX = Velocity Servers Network Exchange

    It could get confusing.. I should do DFNX too for kicks :D

  • MunMun Member

    @DalekOfSkaro said:
    NWNX = New Waveconnect Network Exchange
    VSNX = Velocity Servers Network Exchange

    It could get confusing.. I should do DFNX too for kicks :D

    Please no.

  • Mun said: Please no.

    You of all people should have known I was being sarcastic :-)

  • doughmanesdoughmanes Member
    edited January 2015

    Stop the abuse of the deceased horse. There are laws against assault on deceased animals.

    Thanked by 1Mark_R
  • @CVPS_Chris said:

    Oi, you're still sending me these mails too.

  • @W1V_Lee said:
    There should be more focus on those that have millions of IP's, largely unused such as unversities. There are so many organisations sitting on massive allocations combined that could be brought back in for use.

    I agree. Don't get me wrong here, all means of IP hoarding are disgusting and quite some providers do it or have done it, including some popular and unpopular ones on here.

    But there's bigger fish to catch than VPS providers at this time. The US DoD for example, if I remember correctly, has 8x /8. That's a whole lot of IPs and 1/32 of the total number of IPv4 on the planet.

  • mpkossen said: IP hoarding are disgusting

    I would do it too! It's just business.
    If I would have hosting company I would do everything in my power to hoard as many IPs as possible! Just like at least 5 popular LEB hosts everyone love did it :)
    At least three ex or current top3 voted hosts gave us extra IPv4 address free of charge. Out of the goodness of their hearts? :)

    Thanked by 1netomx
Sign In or Register to comment.