[119605] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T SMTP Admin contact?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad Laue)
Tue Nov 24 19:08:00 2009
From: Brad Laue <brad@brad-x.com>
In-Reply-To: <3743.1259104552@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:06:42 -0500
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2009-11-24, at 6:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:38:33 EST, Brad Laue said:
>=20
>> True, but wouldn't a blacklist of SPF records for known spam issuing
>> domains be a more maintainable list than an IP block whitelist?
>>=20
>> (I'm no doubt missing something very obvious with this question)
>=20
> 140M+ .com where a malicious DNS server in East Podunk can be =
authoritative for
> a domain actually in Bratslavia and domains are cheap and throw-away.
>=20
> 16M /24's, where you (mostly(*)) need to be able to actually route the =
packets,
> so if you have a /24 in Bratslavia, you need something resembling a =
router
> in Bratslavia as well, and somebody willing to light up the other end =
of
> the cable, and you need a way to make BGP announcements (legal or =
otherwise ;)
> to be able to exploit it.
>=20
> Choose wisely which you'd rather use for defense.
>=20
> (*) Mostly - though the BGP hack demonstrated at last year's DefCon
> did qualify as an Epic Win for kewl presentations. ;)
Ah, very true. Still really hoping to get in touch with someone from =
AT&T. :-)
Thanks for the info.=
