nanog mailing list archives
Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP)
From: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:42:48 -0700
Charles Wyble wrote:
I have SBC / AT&T / Yahoo DSL in Southern California and they block outbound 25 to anything but Yahoo SMTP server farm, and they only allow SSLconnectivity at that. I'm all for that personally.
That seems to be the convention wisdom, but the science experiment as it were in blocking port 25 doesn't seem to be correlated (must less causated) with any drop in the spam rate. Because so far as I've heard there isn't any such drop. Spammers and the rest are pretty resourceful. So I still haven't heard why there isn't any emphasis on going after the bots that are by far the biggest problem instead of erecting damage for them to route around. I can sort of understand why providers are leery of getting sucked into that battle, but it's got to cost them a fortune for every "My internet is slow" call they take. Mike
Current thread:
- Re: ingress SMTP, (continued)
- Re: ingress SMTP Stephen Sprunk (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Simon Waters (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Justin Scott (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Daniel Senie (Sep 03)
- RE: ingress SMTP Frank Bulk (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Chris Boyd (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Edward B. DREGER (Sep 07)
- Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP) Michael Thomas (Sep 03)
- Re: Why not go after bots? Charles Wyble (Sep 03)
- Re: Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP) Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 03)
- RE: Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP) Frank Bulk (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Steven Champeon (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Alec Berry (Sep 04)
- Re: ingress SMTP Mark Andrews (Sep 04)
- Re: ingress SMTP Alec Berry (Sep 04)