[107466] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Wed Sep 3 23:26:02 2008
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <bb0e440a0809032008h5715cb60g4e74ef72c51527bd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 22:25:24 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
If the service providers spent as much resources implementing systems that
automatically erected a walled-garden for botted hosts as they have with
bandwidth monitoring, our internet would look at lot cleaner.
But apparently the money trail didn't lead them there.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.lists@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:09 PM
To: Michael Thomas
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP)
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:12 AM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
> That seems to be the convention wisdom, but the science experiment
> as it were in blocking port 25 doesn't seem to be correlated (must
> less causated) with any drop in the spam rate. Because so far as I've
> heard there isn't any such drop. Spammers and the rest are pretty
> resourceful.
Let's put it this way .. a lot of ISPs have already realized that
which is why port 25 blocking or management is the basics. They do
that and have done that for years (and various providers elsewhere
still proudly claim "hey, we do outbound port 25 blocking, we're
great!!!"). The real action is in walled gardens to automatically
detect and isolate botted hosts till they're cleaned up
Go talk to arbor, sandvine, perftech etc etc
srs
