nanog mailing list archives
Re: Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP)
From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:38:58 +0530
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
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.
Let's put it this way .. a lot of ISPs have already realized that which is why port 25 blocking or management is the basics. They do that and have done that for years (and various providers elsewhere still proudly claim "hey, we do outbound port 25 blocking, we're great!!!"). The real action is in walled gardens to automatically detect and isolate botted hosts till they're cleaned up Go talk to arbor, sandvine, perftech etc etc srs
Current thread:
- Re: ingress SMTP, (continued)
- 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 Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 03)
- RE: ingress SMTP Frank Bulk (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Chris Boyd (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Edward B. DREGER (Sep 07)
- Re: ingress SMTP Charles Wyble (Sep 03)
- 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)
- Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP) Michael Thomas (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)
- RE: ingress SMTP Justin D. Scott (Sep 03)