[129394] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP port blocking practice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Fri Sep 3 22:30:34 2010
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:30:19 -0400
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9C23BD21-9384-4959-AAA5-8F4A31050CE1@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:12:01 -0400, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> Really? So, since so many ISPs are blocking port 25, there's lots less
> spam hitting our networks?
Less than there could be. It appears a lot less effective because there
are so many ISPs not doing any blocking. Both of my residential
connections are open, and always have been. (even dialup was unblocked.
which I always found odd since the UUNET wholesale dialup agreement
requires the RADIUS response contain a packet filter limiting port 25 to
your mail server(s).)
If I block port 25 on my network, no spam will originate from it.
(probablly) The spammers will move on to a network that doesn't block
their crap. As long as there are such open networks, spam will be
rampant. If, overnight, every network filtered port 25, spam would all
but disappear. But spam would not completely disappear -- it would just
be coming from known mailservers :-) thus enters outbound scanning and
the frustrated user complaints from poorly tuned systems...
--Ricky
