nanog mailing list archives
Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques
From: Dave Pooser <dave.nanog () alfordmedia com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:19:00 -0500
I use an authenticated TLS-protected mailhost at home for submitting my email for delivery. Unfortunately, networks have taken to: outright blocking 25 and 587 except to their own servers.
Back in the day AT&T dial-up blocked port 25 outgoing (except to their own servers) for the first month; after that, a user could request an unblock. I believe the SBC/AT&T Borg does the same thing with dynamic DSL IPs. It seems to me that blocking port 25 by default and unblocking on request would be an ideal low-maintenance solution that would reduce spam considerably, and has the added benefit of being on-topic for NANOG. -- Dave Pooser, ACSA Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
Current thread:
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques, (continued)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 22)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Dave Pooser (Oct 22)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Sean Figgins (Oct 22)
- [admin] Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Alex Pilosov (Oct 22)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques William Herrin (Oct 21)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Suresh Ramasubramanian (Oct 21)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Al Iverson (Oct 22)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Sean Donelan (Oct 21)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Adrian Chadd (Oct 23)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Owen DeLong (Oct 23)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Jack Bates (Oct 23)
- Message not available
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Owen DeLong (Oct 23)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Dave Pooser (Oct 23)
- RE: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques David Schwartz (Oct 23)
- Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques Dave Pooser (Oct 23)