nanog mailing list archives

Re: Stealth Blocking


From: Robert Sharp <rsharp () appliedtheory com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:04:18 -0400


I would like to make the point that I do run two mail servers and both a maps approved.
Please don't tell me I don't know how to run a mail server.  Again I am not discussing your
ability , please don't poke fun at me.  In fact I had some trouble with spam on one of them
because someone was signing up a list I use for the  owl networks mailing list.  I infact
installed MAPS to see if it helped the problem.  It did not because the user didn't run an
open relay site but rather a no confirmation email list.  Would I be correct to assume they
should be in the MAPS list too?  As you can see sometime spam/annoying emails is not always
sent throught an open relay but sometimes it's a problem with mailing lists.....  What should
maps do, start adding sites that act like this?

I am just making the point that if MAPS wasn't run by one person with total control maybe
some of us "retards who don't know what we are doing" would be a bit more will to support the
effort.


Rob

Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2001 14:36:15 EDT, Robert Sharp said:

And if you use the MAPS list by your choice you are most definetly filtering out email
or traffic for people who are legitimate.  I know I have been filtered before.  MAPS is
using a very large hammer to kill a not so large bug.

Hmm.. you won't configure it correctly. RFC2505 is "Best Current Practice".

You get filtered because you won't configure it correctly.

You say you've been filtered *before* because you won't configure it correctly.

Yes, we *admit* we're using a large hammer.  Bouncing your e-mail didn't
get your attention.  Maybe irate users will get your attention.  But I
am doubting it.
--
                                Valdis Kletnieks
                                Operating Systems Analyst
                                Virginia Tech

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature



Current thread: