Re: rfc 1918?

[bill manning <bmanning@localhost.localdomain>]

"We" certainly are. As the stickie for holding that space, I field alot
of
spam complaints about drek that originates from RFC 1918 space. I really
wish 
NATs were smart enough to rewrite SMTP headers... sometimes. :)



SMcGrath () dhhs state nh us wrote:
> Bill, You get the 10 point bonus.
>
> Are we leaking RFC1918 SMTP headers ?
>
> Scott
>
> bill manning <bmanning@localhost.localdomain>@merit.edu on 02/23/2001
> 02:49:32 PM
>
> Please respond to bmanning () karoshi com
>
> Sent by:  owner-nanog () merit edu
>
> To:   nanog () merit edu
> cc:   Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
>
> Subject:  Re: rfc 1918?
>
> SMcGrath () dhhs state nh us wrote:
> > Agreed Valdis,
> >
> > Our upstream's use 1918 addresses internally  so that 1918 addresses are
> > constantly bouncing off our filters
> > we have an aggressive egress filter which makes sure no 1918's leak and
> > pollute the internet ;-} and filtering on core routers is a suboptimal
> > solution RFC 1819 addresses (10 points to the person who knows the
> > predecessor)  NEED to be filtered at the border IMHO.
> >
> > Scott
>
> AS long as you are filtering, could you -PLEASE- add the SMTP filter to
> prevent email w/ RFC 1918 addresses in the headers from leaking out of
> your networks?
>
> RFC 1597.
>
> --bill