[122713] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Spamhaus...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Senie)
Sat Feb 20 09:51:56 2010
From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100220130823.GA5232@gsp.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:51:33 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 20, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 08:20:36PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
>> Whine all you want about backscatter but until you propose a
>> comprehensive solution that's still reasonably compatible with RFC
>> 2821's section 3.7 you're just talking trash.
>=20
> We're well past that. Every minimally-competent postmaster on this
> planet knows that clause became operationally obsolete years ago [1], =
and
> has configured their mail systems to always reject, never bounce. [2]
So write a BCP that amends RFC2821. This HAS been done before. When =
directed broadcasts were the hot new way to cause damage, RFC 2644 was =
born (a.k.a. BCP34). It simply said that since the original document was =
written, it had been determined that a required default setting was =
found to damage the Internet and that henceforth, the default value MUST =
be the opposite. The option is still there for those cases when needed, =
but damage is avoided. Those coding up new router stacks hopefully =
heeded the advice. Certainly two of the leading vendors at the time did =
so.
Instead of saying "well, it's obvious to everyone," do something about =
it.
