nanog mailing list archives
RE: SMTP rate-limits [Was: Re: ingress SMTP]
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:02:13 -0500
Can anyone comment authoritatively on the percentage of spam that's from a leaky faucet compared to fire hose? The stuff I see in my customer base are all fire hoses at the rate of 2.5, sometimes 5 message connection attempts per second. (I bet an academic could study the rate of spam emissions from a certain IP to identify their upstream bandwidth). Frank -----Original Message----- From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike () mtcc com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:46 AM To: Paul Ferguson Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: SMTP rate-limits [Was: Re: ingress SMTP] <snip> I thought that these bot nets were so massive that it is pretty easy for them to fly under the radar for quotas, rate limiting, etc. Not that all bot nets are created equal, and there aren't local hot spots for whatever reason, but putting on the brakes in a way that users wouldn't feel pain is simply not going to make any appreciable difference in the overall mal-rate. No? Mike
Current thread:
- SMTP rate-limits [Was: Re: ingress SMTP] Paul Ferguson (Sep 05)
- Re: SMTP rate-limits [Was: Re: ingress SMTP] Michael Thomas (Sep 05)
- Re: SMTP rate-limits [Was: Re: ingress SMTP] Tony Finch (Sep 05)
- RE: SMTP rate-limits [Was: Re: ingress SMTP] Frank Bulk (Sep 06)
- Re: SMTP rate-limits [Was: Re: ingress SMTP] Michael Thomas (Sep 05)