[184669] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP-Echelon Compliance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Wed Oct 14 12:50:00 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <8774.1444833365@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:49:56 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>,
Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
looks like ip-echelon's MX's are:
67.43.171.100 - 67.43.171.96/27
67.43.165.163 - 67.43.165.160/27
203.122.134.3 - 122-134-3.dsl.connexus.net.au. ?
you could presumably just iptables away (or postfix reject) from
those, and then there's this:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
ip-echelon.com. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1
include:mailgun.org ~all"
ip-echelon.com. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1
include:mail.zendesk.com ?all"
ip-echelon.com. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1
ptr:ip-echelon.com ip4:67.43.171.96/27 ip4:67.43.165.160/27
ip4:203.122.134.0/28 include:_spf.google.com ~all"
ip-echelon.com. 300 IN TXT "MS=ms85153493"
joy. messy :(
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:36 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:20:39 +0200, Randy Bush said:
>> >> http://www.procmail.org/
>> > I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach. There is no
>> > obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet
>> > services to them, including SMTP services.
>>
>> computers are cheap. my time is finite and i value it highly. what is
>> the minimal action i can take to see that idiots do not take my time?
>
> I suppose it would be bad form to suggest hiring somebody from <insert favorite
> crime cartel> with a Louisville Slugger to perform percussive maintenance on
> the offending party?
>
