nanog mailing list archives
RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus
From: Mike Jezierski - BOFH <bofh () digitalfarmers org>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:01:55 -0500
At 11:40 -0700 8/12/03, Randy Bush wrote:
> As a larger than average end user and what couldbe called a small ISP, I really can not image legitimate traffic on 135.. who in there right mind would pass NB traffic in the wild?the days of giving intelligence tests to customers is long gone. the job of an isp is to deliver packets. maybe your customer is foolish. but break their ceo's access and you're their ex- isp. randy
My experience seems to be that as the ISP we're blamed when the subscribers gets a virus, because after all it's our network that sent the customer the virus.
-- Mike
Current thread:
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus, (continued)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Jack Bates (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Jack Bates (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Petri Helenius (Aug 12)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Dave Israel (Aug 12)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus John Palmer (Aug 12)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Randy Bush (Aug 12)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Mike Jezierski - BOFH (Aug 12)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Jason Frisvold (Aug 13)
- RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Stephen J. Wilcox (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Mans Nilsson (Aug 13)
- Re: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 13)