nanog mailing list archives
Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:22:33 -0500
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:03:02 +0100, Markus Stumpf said:
How did you calculate that "40% of my legitimate email"? If you get 60 emails from 60 different hosts that have revDNS and you get 40 mails from two hosts without revDNS then also "40% of your legitimate email" is coming from servers without revDNS, but in fact the precentage of servers without revDNS would be around 3.2%. Quite a difference.
Which would mean that if Suresh insisted on revDNS, he'd end up blocking only 2 hosts, but 40% of his legitimate mail would be dropped on the floor. I'd *hope* that knowingly dropping 40% of the *legitimate* mail on the floor would be considered a CLM. But these days some providers seem to think "all of Europe" is a reasonable filter.....
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonymity" when domain exists, whois not updated yet), (continued)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonymity" when domain exists, whois not updated yet) Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 12)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonymity" when domain exists, whois not updated yet) Dave Crocker (Jan 12)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonymity" when domain exists, whois not updated yet) Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 12)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonymity" when domain exists, whois not updated yet) Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 12)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonymity" when domain exists, whois not updated yet) Steven Champeon (Jan 12)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Window of "anonymity" when domain exists, whois not updated yet) Andre Oppermann (Jan 13)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure John Levine (Jan 13)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Markus Stumpf (Jan 24)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 24)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Markus Stumpf (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Markus Stumpf (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure J.D. Falk (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Markus Stumpf (Jan 25)
- Re: marking dynamic ranges, was fixing insecure email infrastructure Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 25)
- Message not available
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Mark Andrews (Jan 13)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Owen DeLong (Jan 13)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] william(at)elan.net (Jan 13)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 13)
- Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article] Todd Vierling (Jan 14)