nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lazy network operators
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:15:15 +0200
On 13-apr-04, at 22:32, Sean Donelan wrote:
I'm very much suggesting blocking outward to the Internet port 25 traffic, except from configured mail relays for that end-user site. Those hosts which have MSTP malware are stopped cold as a result.
NNTP is set up almost everywhere with configured server to server connections, and essentially all "open" NNTP user access has been closed down over the years.
How is the spam problem on USENET these days?
I've been on Usenet again for a while last year and there was surprisingly little spam compared to some years back. Apparently some people have taken it upon themselves to remove all the spam that pops up. NTTP is at an advantage over SMTP here because "personalizing" messages for each recipient isn't possible here.
Talking about lazy: blocking port 25 is very lazy, in several ways: intelectually, morally and just plain way. It's intellectually lazy because there are other ways to arrive at the same result that don't arbitrarily block communications between two consenting hosts. Morally it's lazy to assume that just because you don't need something, others won't either. And of course having all those access networks install filters rather than work on the problem yourself is just plain lazy.
If we all agree that we don't want to talk SMTP to broadband consumers, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a registry that lists IP addresses used by broadband consumers. Or maybe it's easier to work the other way around and list the servers we actually may want to talk to. This approach has two main advantages over filtering port 25:
1. People can still talk to unlisted SMTP hosts if they feel they have a good reason to do so (ie, I get to deliver messages directly to my server from home rather than being forced to use my service provider's which may or may not work)
2. Checking is done per SMTP session rather than per IP packetThe good news is that the IETF is now starting work on this, so expect results in two or three years.
Current thread:
- Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators), (continued)
- Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) Eric A. Hall (Apr 12)
- Re: Abuse mail boxese (was Re: Lazy network operators) J.D. Falk (Apr 12)
- Re: Lazy network operators Paul Vixie (Apr 12)
- Re: Lazy network operators E.B. Dreger (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators George William Herbert (Apr 10)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Sean Donelan (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Andrew - Supernews (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Randy Bush (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Christopher L. Morrow (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Randy Bush (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Christopher L. Morrow (Apr 13)
- Re: Lazy network operators Robert E. Seastrom (Apr 14)
- Routing issues Simon Brilus (Apr 14)
- Re: Routing issues Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 14)
- Re: Routing issues Rubens Kuhl Jr. (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 13)
- Re: Routing issues Nick Feamster (Apr 14)