nanog mailing list archives
Re: ISP port blocking practice
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:59:23 +0900
No. It'd just increase a LOT, astronomically.i suspect that, if we opened smtp relays again, unblocked 25 for consumer chokeband, etc., total spam received would likely increase a bit. but my guess, and i mean guess, is that the limiting parameter could well be how many bots the perps can get, not how well those bots are blocked.
i keep hearing that, but am having a hard time finding supporting data. randy
Current thread:
- Re: ISP port blocking practice, (continued)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Owen DeLong (Sep 05)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Franck Martin (Sep 05)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Jon Auer (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Scott Howard (Sep 11)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Brett Frankenberger (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice deleskie (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Brett Frankenberger (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Randy Bush (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Randy Bush (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Randy Bush (Sep 07)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice John Levine (Sep 09)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Owen DeLong (Sep 05)
- RE: ISP port blocking practice Brian Johnson (Sep 13)
- Re: RE: ISP port blocking practice Joshua William Klubi (Sep 13)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Franck Martin (Sep 02)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Owen DeLong (Sep 03)