[56482] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question concerning authoritative bodies.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jlewis@lewis.org)
Sun Mar 9 15:56:26 2003
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:55:47 -0500 (EST)
From: jlewis@lewis.org
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <00cf01c2e675$54d80300$624b4041@jackdell>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> networks back it. Blocking the scans at a TCP/IP level is easily detectable.
> Provider received email from said server, IP was submitted for testing, no
> connection can be established to said server. Place it in the "wouldn't
> allow scan list". Politely ask AOL to use the "wouldn't allow scan list" for
> all inbound smtp connections.
Lots of people run outgoing mail servers that don't accept connections
from the outside. A scarey number of people run "multihomed" mail servers
where traffic comes in on one IP, leaves on another, and the output IP
doesn't listen for SMTP connections.
> People want the abuse of unsecured relays for smtp stopped. I'm afraid it is
Some do. Some see absolutely nothing wrong with their running open
relays. You're going to need a serious authority figure with some
effective means of backing up their policy to change these minds.
BTW...these topics have been discussed before. Before we all get warnings
from the nanog list police, have a look at the thread I started back in
8-2001 http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/0108/msg00448.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route
System Administrator | therefore you are
Atlantic Net |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
