nanog mailing list archives
Re: Spamhaus...
From: Roger Marquis <marquis () roble com>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:51:57 -0800 (PST)
William Herrin wrote:
Indeed, and the ones who are more than minimally competent have considered the protocol as a whole and come to understand that at a technical level the "reject don't bounce" theory has more holes in it than you can shake a stick at.
No way. You are kidding aren't you Bill? Honestly, I have not encountered a sysadmin who allows their company's mailexchangers to send backscatter in close to 8 years (outside of non-technical SMBs who also have numerous other systems and network issues, and one university hamstringed by vendor lock-in). The really issue here IMO is the RFC process. Given how badly the implementation of IPv6 is coming along it really should not surprise anyone that SMTP RFCs are no less dated and no less out of sync with real world conditions. Deja vu X.400. Roger Marquis
Current thread:
- Re: Spamhaus..., (continued)
- Re: Spamhaus... Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 22)
- Re: Spamhaus... Steven Champeon (Feb 19)
- Re: Spamhaus... Nick Hilliard (Feb 18)
- Re: Spamhaus... Christopher Morrow (Feb 18)
- Re: Spamhaus... John Levine (Feb 18)
- Re: Spamhaus... Marc Powell (Feb 19)
- Re: Spamhaus... Michelle Sullivan (Feb 19)
- Re: Spamhaus... Larry Sheldon (Feb 19)
- Re: Spamhaus... Marc Powell (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Roger Marquis (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Robert Bonomi (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... James Hess (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Jon Lewis (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... James Hess (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... John Levine (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Graeme Fowler (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... James Hess (Feb 20)
- Re: Spamhaus... Michelle Sullivan (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... Jon Lewis (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... Tony Finch (Feb 21)
- Re: Spamhaus... Michelle Sullivan (Feb 21)