[121178] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SORBS on autopilot?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Thomas)
Tue Jan 12 14:11:53 2010
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:11:13 -0800
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
To: Dave Martin <darkmoon@vt.edu>, Jed Smith <jed@jedsmith.org>,
nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20100112184859.GB12541@vt.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 01/12/2010 10:48 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:51:47AM -0500, Jed Smith wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>> The vibe I got from a number of administrators I talked to about it was "why
>> would a standards document assume an IPv4/IPv6 unicast address is a residential
>> customer with a modem, forcing those with allocations to prove that they are
>> not residentially allocated rather than the other way around?"
>
> Because a default allow policy doesn't work in today's environment.
>
> Blocking generic and residential addresses is the single most effective
> thing we've ever done to reduce spam.
Really? You mean that if you stopped doing this you'd have trillions,
or quadrillions of spams per day instead now? I'm skeptical.
Mike
