nanog mailing list archives
FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding () burtongroup com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:29:44 -0400
On 9/21/04 1:00 PM, "james edwards" <hackerwacker () cybermesa com> wrote:
Sheesh. Get over /yourself/. Your network is rude by its very existence, if it lets spammers relay crud by way of it. Your own arrogance in thinking it's not your problem to fix is astounding.I did no say it is not my problem, we have a 10 year history of being very pro-active for all abuse issues and have a dedicated staff person to deal with these issues. Slaming my mail admin because a dial up user has a virus is rude, period. Our dial up address space is listed, if people choose to block mail from that space. james
To shift this to a more operational tone... Networks make choices. One choice is to declare their dynamic space and put the duty of ignoring emails from dialups users on the receiving networks. Another choice is to filter port 25. Filtering port 25 has its own costs - some users are offended/bothered by this, since they can't use their own corporate mail servers, in some cases. If a network makes the choice of putting the duty of filtering on the receiving party, they need to accept that this will upset some of those receivers. Today's security environment means that spam-sending viruses are common. The only responsible thing to do is filter port 25, smarthost for your users, and inform them about using the alternate submission port with authenticated SMTP in order to work with enterprise mail servers - or IPSec VPNs, for that matter. This is simply the best practice, at this point in time. Using humans ("dedicated staff person") to stop spam isn't scalable - automated processes are sending this stuff, we need systematic ways to fight it - black/white lists, SPF, port 25 filtering, bayesian filtering and other tools. -- Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group
Current thread:
- The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net james edwards (Sep 21)
- Re: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Steven Champeon (Sep 21)
- Re: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net james edwards (Sep 21)
- Re: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Steven Champeon (Sep 21)
- Re: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Jon Lewis (Sep 21)
- Re: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net james edwards (Sep 21)
- Re: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net james edwards (Sep 21)
- Re: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Steven Champeon (Sep 21)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Daniel Golding (Sep 21)
- Re: FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Daniel Senie (Sep 21)
- Re: FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Steven Champeon (Sep 21)
- Re: FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 21)
- Re: FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Joe Provo (Sep 21)
- Re: FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Allan Poindexter (Sep 21)
- Re: FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Brian Wallingford (Sep 21)
- Re: FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Steven Champeon (Sep 21)
- Re: FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Allan Poindexter (Sep 22)
- Re: FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Daniel Senie (Sep 21)
- Re: FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net Douglas Otis (Sep 21)