nanog mailing list archives
RE: Stealth Blocking
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:35:07 -0700
I'm getting seriously confused here. I thought that the open-relay issue was irelevent to MAPS. That MAPS only black-holed confirmed SPAM sites (a little tougher, but more granular, charter). Further, that it was ORBS that listed open-relay sites specifically, whether they were involved in a spam or not (unacceptable due to punishing potential anti-spammers for proliferating spam that never saw their systems). To me, these are two entirely different charters. If MAPS starts to look like ORBS then I will stop using MAPS. Can someone please clarify?
-----Original Message----- From: Robert Sharp [mailto:rsharp () appliedtheory com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 1:04 PM To: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Stealth Blocking I would like to make the point that I do run two mail servers and both a maps approved. Please don't tell me I don't know how to run a mail server. Again I am not discussing your ability , please don't poke fun at me. In fact I had some trouble with spam on one of them because someone was signing up a list I use for the owl networks mailing list. I infact installed MAPS to see if it helped the problem. It did not because the user didn't run an open relay site but rather a no confirmation email list. Would I be correct to assume they should be in the MAPS list too? As you can see sometime spam/annoying emails is not always sent throught an open relay but sometimes it's a problem with mailing lists..... What should maps do, start adding sites that act like this? I am just making the point that if MAPS wasn't run by one person with total control maybe some of us "retards who don't know what we are doing" would be a bit more will to support the effort. Rob Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:On Wed, 23 May 2001 14:36:15 EDT, Robert Sharp said:And if you use the MAPS list by your choice you are mostdefinetly filtering out emailor traffic for people who are legitimate. I know I havebeen filtered before. MAPS isusing a very large hammer to kill a not so large bug.Hmm.. you won't configure it correctly. RFC2505 is "BestCurrent Practice".You get filtered because you won't configure it correctly. You say you've been filtered *before* because you won'tconfigure it correctly.Yes, we *admit* we're using a large hammer. Bouncing youre-mail didn'tget your attention. Maybe irate users will get yourattention. But Iam doubting it. -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech-------------------------------------------------------------- ----------Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
Current thread:
- Re: Stealth Blocking, (continued)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Shawn McMahon (May 23)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Albert Meyer (May 23)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Shawn McMahon (May 24)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Albert Meyer (May 24)
- MTU sizing? was stealth blocking bmanning (May 24)
- Why are you all still here? (Was Re: Stealth Blocking) mike (May 24)
- Re: Why are you all still here? (Was Re: Stealth Blocking) Mitch Halmu (May 24)
- finding POPs Miles Fidelman (May 23)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Shawn McMahon (May 23)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Adam Rothschild (May 23)
- RE: Stealth Blocking David Schwartz (May 23)
- Re: Stealth Blocking Valdis . Kletnieks (May 24)
- Re: Stealth Blocking J.D. Falk (May 23)
- RE: Stealth Blocking David Schwartz (May 23)
- RE: Stealth Blocking jlewis (May 23)
- RE: Stealth Blocking David Schwartz (May 24)
- Scanning (was Re: Stealth Blocking) William Allen Simpson (May 24)
- Re: Scanning (was Re: Stealth Blocking) Joseph T. Klein (May 24)
- Re: Scanning (was Re: Stealth Blocking) Paul Vixie (May 24)