nanog mailing list archives
Re: ISP port blocking practice
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 07:06:53 +0530
No. It'd just increase a LOT, astronomically. Something on the lines of turning a firehose of petrol on a wildfire On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
i suspect that, if we opened smtp relays again, unblocked 25 for consumer chokeband, etc., total spam received would likely increase a bit. but my guess, and i mean guess, is that the limiting parameter could well be how many bots the perps can get, not how well those bots are blocked.
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists () gmail com)
Current thread:
- Re: ISP port blocking practice, (continued)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Jon Lewis (Sep 05)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Owen DeLong (Sep 05)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Franck Martin (Sep 05)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Jon Auer (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Scott Howard (Sep 11)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Brett Frankenberger (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice deleskie (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Brett Frankenberger (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Randy Bush (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Randy Bush (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 06)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Randy Bush (Sep 07)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice John Levine (Sep 09)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Owen DeLong (Sep 05)
- RE: ISP port blocking practice Brian Johnson (Sep 13)
- Re: RE: ISP port blocking practice Joshua William Klubi (Sep 13)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Franck Martin (Sep 02)
- Re: ISP port blocking practice Owen DeLong (Sep 03)