nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP-Echelon Compliance
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 06:37:57 -0400
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:12:29PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
jeezus folk! http://www.procmail.org/
I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach. There is no obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet services to them, including SMTP services. A much better move would be to identify the network block emitting this abuse and block/drop all packets from it at the perimeter of the network or in the firewall(s). After all, spammers frequently engage in other forms of abuse, so it would probably be best to simply remove them from your view of the Internet. ---rsk
Current thread:
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance, (continued)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Bjørn Mork (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Mike Hammett (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Baldur Norddahl (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Rich Kulawiec (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Bjørn Mork (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Fred Hollis (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance seth (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Bob Evans (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Peter Kristolaitis (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Jason Hellenthal (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Randy Bush (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Rich Kulawiec (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Stephen Satchell (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Randy Bush (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Christopher Morrow (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Matthias Leisi (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance George Herbert (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Mike Hammett (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Rich Kulawiec (Oct 15)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Andrew Kirch (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Christopher Morrow (Oct 14)