nanog mailing list archives
Re: Unplugging spamming PCs
From: Petri Helenius <pete () he iki fi>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:14:58 +0300
Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote:
No, that would be punishing before the crime happened. Responsible would be to punish swiftly after the fact, but not before.Proactive would be blocking port 25 except to comcast.net's mail servers, at least on retail users without static IPs, and then opening it up if the customer cannot work around it by using comcast's mail server to send out. Thats what responsible ISPs have done.
Pete
Current thread:
- Unplugging spamming PCs Hank Nussbacher (Jun 22)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs William Warren (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Brett (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Sam Hayes Merritt, III (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Brett (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Paul Vixie (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Ben Browning (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Petri Helenius (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Brett (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Doug White (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs William Warren (Jun 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Unplugging spamming PCs Larry Pingree (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Peter Corlett (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Michael . Dillon (Jun 24)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Henry Linneweh (Jun 24)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Peter Corlett (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Chris Horry (Jun 24)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Joe Hamelin (Jun 23)
- Re: Unplugging spamming PCs Peter Galbavy (Jun 24)