nanog mailing list archives
Re: ingress SMTP
From: Simon Waters <simonw () zynet net>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:24:38 +0100
On Wednesday 03 September 2008 18:07:22 Stephen Sprunk wrote:
When port 25 block was first instituted, several providers actually redirected connections to their own servers (with spam filters and/or rate limits) rather than blocking the port entirely. This seems like a good compromise for port 25 in particular, provided you have the tools available to implement and support it properly.
It generated some very confused support calls here, where folks said I sent email to your server, and we had to tell them "no you didn't, you only thought you did". Please if you are going to block it block it clearly and transparently. On the other hand abuse by bots isn't restricted to SMTP, and I suspect ISPs would be better of long term having a way of spotting compromised/malicious hosts and dealing with them, than applying a sticky plaster to port 25. Indeed spewing on port 25 is probably a good sign you need to apply said system.
Current thread:
- Re: ingress SMTP, (continued)
- Re: ingress SMTP Robert E. Seastrom (Sep 11)
- Re: ingress SMTP Bill Stewart (Sep 12)
- Re: ingress SMTP Mark Foster (Sep 12)
- Re: ingress SMTP Matthew Moyle-Croft (Sep 12)
- RE: ingress SMTP Frank Bulk (Sep 13)
- Re: ingress SMTP Matthew Moyle-Croft (Sep 13)
- Re: ingress SMTP Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 13)
- RE: ingress SMTP Frank Bulk (Sep 13)
- Re: ingress SMTP Alec Berry (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Stephen Sprunk (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Simon Waters (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 Chris Boyd (Sep 03)
- Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP) Michael Thomas (Sep 03)
- Re: Why not go after bots? Charles Wyble (Sep 03)