|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:51:46 -0800 (PST) From: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com> To: Peter Salus <peter@matrix.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <200302211736.h1LHaZR07858@mercury.aus.us.mids.org> Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu Peter, I didn't say that I did that, only that I know that there are networks which deny all mail traffic from certain ASes and/or TLDs on a fairly regular basis. Personally I don't have a problem with .cc I would say that for a US operator to respond to a threat by enabling additional, temporary logging/monitoring of specific ports would not be unreasonable. Denying all traffic is a bit harsh, especially from a paying customer, but I could understand watching them really closely. Public peers, on the other hand, might get a different sort of treatment entirely... The only reason this makes any sense at all is that most networks are basically OK most of the time, so the rest of your network can probably spare a little bit of attention for a short period of time. If it were forever, then that solution wouldn't work. -David Barak fully RFC 1925 compliant --- Peter Salus <peter@matrix.net> wrote: > > > David, what does "from" mean in your "rules"? > > with .cc at the end? But there are very many > places with addresses in TLDs and ccTLDs other > than the geographical location. > > passing through an AS known to be in a given > location? > > Peter __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |