[100406] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Misguided SPAM Filtering techniques
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Pooser)
Tue Oct 23 01:51:01 2007
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:19:00 -0500
From: Dave Pooser <dave.nanog@alfordmedia.com>
To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <6D1ED593-93AF-4157-8623-C2160E0FF561@delong.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> I use an authenticated TLS-protected mailhost at home for submitting my
> email for delivery. Unfortunately, networks have taken to:
>
> outright blocking 25 and 587 except to their own servers.
Back in the day AT&T dial-up blocked port 25 outgoing (except to their own
servers) for the first month; after that, a user could request an unblock. I
believe the SBC/AT&T Borg does the same thing with dynamic DSL IPs.
It seems to me that blocking port 25 by default and unblocking on request
would be an ideal low-maintenance solution that would reduce spam
considerably, and has the added benefit of being on-topic for NANOG.
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
