[58765] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dnsbl's? - an informal survey
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Fri May 30 22:26:12 2003
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 21:25:46 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@baby-dragons.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0305302213560.2225@filesrv1.baby-dragons.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
<snip>
> White listing is NOT what was being discussed . Tho is can be
> adventagous in the right circumstances .
>
>
<snip>
>
> And neither was Static addressing . Filtering was being discussed
> based on some unknown (to me probably others as well) methodology .
> Twyl , JimL
White listing comes with any blacklist. The blacklists in particular
being discussed were the @dynamics, like the PDL and dynablock at
easynet. Both lists quite clearly state how they build their lists and
what they are designed to block (dynablock only takes out dialup, and
PDL takes out all dynamic addressing).
Given the number of insecure client systems on dynamic addressing (proxy
servers, trojans, etc), accepting email from dynamic addresses is
becoming inherently more dangerous. If smarthosts can't be used from
those addresses, then special whitelisting can be done.
Of course, the person implementing email blocks of any type, especially
public blacklists, must take some ammount of responsibility in
maintaining legitimate email communications as dictated by users.
-Jack
