nanog mailing list archives

Re: att.net email issues?


From: kai () pac-rim net
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:51:27 -0500


Now that the noise level (SQLSlammer) is down:

It looks like AT&T put the finger back into the dike on this for now:
You don't really want your customer service call center get flooded by
two issues at once:

http://www.internet-magazine.com/news/view.asp?id=3110


On 1/24/2003 at 7:16 PM, sean () donelan com wrote:

In the good old days, when network engineers used VT100 terminals and 300
baud (not bps) acoustic modems, ftp.uu.net enforced the requirement for
"valid" reverse and forward DNS entries for anonymous FTP access.

It was the single most important source for files on the Internet, along
with maybe SIMTEL-20 : you couldn't get around it, no matter how hard you
tried.

Fast forward 10 years: would you even dare to put "HostnameLookups yes"
into your Apache config? Not if you don't feel like having well-populated
DNS caches useful to you for some other purpose, you don't. A purely
operational configuration choice.

Doesn't anyone else find it funny when people scream that ISPs should
block ports and shoot people with misconfigured systems; yet when
an ISP actually does enforce even a modest requirement; people start
screaming how unfair or stupid that ISP is for doing that.

We sure all hate tracerouting through APNIC space, and seeing up to 12
routers in a row without reverse DNS - to the point where one could
believe that noone in Korea ever heard of the in-addr.arpa zone :

Apart from AT&T having the "left hand/right hand" (hypocritic) problem
with being service providers to spammers on one hand, and aching under
the receiving load of it on the other: Good intentions, but failed to
even do a basic Google search to see how other people fared with this,
let alone running a test and labelling incoming mails rather than
blocking them.

Now to toss a bit more oil into the fire: "unknown.level3.net" ,
anyone ? And remember: it's not neglience, it's Level3's secret
"handshake", telling you that the block in question should be
filtered by you at any cost :)


Current thread: