[145951] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Outgoing SMTP Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Johnson)
Thu Oct 27 14:27:14 2011
From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com>
To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:24:22 +0000
In-Reply-To: <201110271750.p9RHoMCT065493@mail.r-bonomi.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Bonomi [mailto:bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:50 PM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers
>
>
>On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:53:34 -0000, Brian Johnson said:
>
>> It is interesting that some people who fully understand that the Interne=
t is
>> composed of many networks run by people with different interests can say
>what
>> is best for the Internet as a whole. How my organization (or yours or
>anybody
>> else's) runs our network, is between us and our paying users.
>
>That claim is true *ONLY* to the extent that 'how your organization runs
>your network' does _not_ have an adverse effect on other peoples networks.
>
>The fact of the matter is that you do not have a viable business without
>the collective 'tolerance'/'approval' of the rest of the world.
>
OK.
>You, and your organization, need them far more than they need you.
>
Argumentative and unnecessary.
>_How_ you pro-actively ensure spam does not exit from your network IS your
>business.
>
>That you *do* do so _is_ within the action purveiw of the 'rest of the wor=
ld'.
>
Judge me as you will. My customers will determine if I change this policy. =
Their judgment is all that matters in this circumstance as the external Int=
ernet community has the access that the Internet community needs relative t=
o this instance.
>"Doing so" requires that you _actively_ monitor the behavior of your
>customers
>and have 'ways and means' in place to (a) detect, and (b) _stop_ immediate=
ly
>upon detection, such abusive behavior by your customers.
>
>One of the 'easiest', and most _cost-effective_ ways of doing so *is* to
>force all outgoing mail from your customers through a 'choke point' for
>examination/filtering/blckcing.
>
>The simplest way of doing that, *without* running afoul of 'wiretapping'
>statutes. is to require, by policy and by blocking direct external access,
>that customer out-bound email traffic go through your servers, and doing
>the necessary 'inspection' there.
>
>
I think you support my position, but I could be convinced otherwise. :)
Be careful with you punctuation. I got lost a few times there :)
- Brian
