[35060] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: rfc 1918?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bill manning)
Sun Feb 25 06:52:34 2001
Message-ID: <3A98F0B0.4CE9730C@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:46:56 -0800
From: bill manning <bmanning@localhost.localdomain>
Reply-To: bmanning@karoshi.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SMcGrath@dhhs.state.nh.us
Cc: bmanning@karoshi.com, nanog@merit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
"We" certainly are. As the stickie for holding that space, I field alot
of
spam complaints about drek that originates from RFC 1918 space. I really
wish
NATs were smart enough to rewrite SMTP headers... sometimes. :)
SMcGrath@dhhs.state.nh.us wrote:
>
> Bill, You get the 10 point bonus.
>
> Are we leaking RFC1918 SMTP headers ?
>
> Scott
>
> bill manning <bmanning@localhost.localdomain>@merit.edu on 02/23/2001
> 02:49:32 PM
>
> Please respond to bmanning@karoshi.com
>
> Sent by: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
>
> Subject: Re: rfc 1918?
>
> SMcGrath@dhhs.state.nh.us wrote:
> >
> > Agreed Valdis,
> >
> > Our upstream's use 1918 addresses internally so that 1918 addresses are
> > constantly bouncing off our filters
> > we have an aggressive egress filter which makes sure no 1918's leak and
> > pollute the internet ;-} and filtering on core routers is a suboptimal
> > solution RFC 1819 addresses (10 points to the person who knows the
> > predecessor) NEED to be filtered at the border IMHO.
> >
> > Scott
> >
>
> AS long as you are filtering, could you -PLEASE- add the SMTP filter to
> prevent email w/ RFC 1918 addresses in the headers from leaking out of
> your networks?
>
> RFC 1597.
>
> --bill
