[13227] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg A. Woods)
Fri Oct 31 02:46:38 1997
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 02:43:37 -0500 (EST)
From: woods@most.weird.com (Greg A. Woods)
To: Dalvenjah FoxFire <dalvenjah@dal.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Dalvenjah FoxFire's message
of "Wed, October 29, 1997 15:12:46 -0800"
regarding "Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful"
id <199710292312.PAA20074@dragonlair.dal.net>
Reply-To: woods@weird.com (Greg A. Woods)
[ On Wed, October 29, 1997 at 15:12:46 (-0800), Dalvenjah FoxFire wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
>
> The only reason I can think of that would stop this would be if a
> user subscribes to earthlink, but uses a UUnet dialin, that customer's
> software would be set up to use the Earthlink SMTP servers.
This should only present a minor complexity. If the authentication
information can be retrieved from the correct home ISP then there should
be no trouble identifying that ISP and adding the right filter to their
profile.
> Keep in mind again I don't yet know much about how this would impact
> router performance..but wouldn't one be able to set up access-lists,
> then, that would allow port-25 connections to a defined list of SMTP
> servers (say, UUnet, MSN, and earthlink SMTP servers), and prohibit
> everything else?
One more filter rule in the existing list for preventing IP spoofing
shouldn't make any significant difference.
> Why aren't they doing this?
Probably because they're not preventing IP spoofing yet either.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
