[156060] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Ihnen)
Wed Sep 5 11:47:20 2012
In-Reply-To: <20120905T145402Z@localhost>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:46:34 -0400
From: Greg Ihnen <os10rules@gmail.com>
To: Izaac <izaac@setec.org>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Izaac <izaac@setec.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 07:50:12AM -0700, Henry Stryker wrote:
> > Not only that, but a majority of spam I receive lately has a valid DKIM
> > signature. They are adaptive, like cockroaches.
>
> This is why tcp port 25 filtering is totally effective and will remain so
> forever. Definitely worth breaking basic function principles of a
> global communications network over which trillions of dollars of commerce
> occur.
>
> --
> . ___ ___ . . ___
> . \ / |\ |\ \
> . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
>
>
But as someone pointed out further back on this thread people who want to
have their mail servers available to people who are on the other side of
port 25 filtering just use the alternate ports. So then what does filtering
port 25 accomplish?
Greg
