RE: RBL-type BGP service for known rogue networks?

[woods () weird com (Greg A. Woods)]

[ On Saturday, July 8, 2000 at 21:24:28 (-0700), Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: RBL-type BGP service for known rogue networks?
>
> I agree. MHSC lost an entire market plan, hosting third-party
> secure mail, becasue third-party mail services must allow
> relaying that is at minimum semi-open. At the time SMTP AUTH
> didn't exist (Until it's use becomes more wide-spread it still
> isn't real useful).

Too bad for them -- they could easily have implemented any one of a half
dozen available solutions that would have allowed success.  SMTP AUTH is
only one of the possibilities and even if it's the best one it's not
worth worrying over if it's not viable.  Use one of the other viable
solutions and you can be in business today!

> The anti-relay bunch are killing a valid
> business model.

That's completely untrue.  Those are very poor excuses to use when they
result in presenting very real risks to the entire Internet as a whole.

> Even for internal use, we have staff, on
> client-site, that need to send/recieve their mail from our
> servers, even when their lap-top is DHCP attached to another
> net-block.

VPNs are child's play now, and inexpensive to deploy.  Please use them!

> Every week we find ourselves having to open the relays
> more and more. Next week, I am travelling to the EU on business.
> That's yet more net-blocks that I have to allow relaying from.

That's idiotic.  Please use the tools at your disposal instead of
increasing the risk you present to the entire Internet as a whole!

-- 
                                                        Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods () acm org>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods () planix com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods () weird com>