[62662] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Providers removing blocks on port 135?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Sep 20 18:05:49 2003
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:05:08 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Rob Thomas <robt@cymru.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.56.0309201651500.19101@dragon.sauron.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
However, I'm not convinced blocking port 25 on dialups helps much with that.
What it does help with is preventing them from connecting to open relays.
The real solution in the long run will be two-fold:
1. Internet hosts need to become less penetrable. (or at least
one particular brand of software)
2. SMTP AUTH will need to become more widespread and end-to-endish.
Owen
--On Saturday, September 20, 2003 4:53 PM -0500 Rob Thomas <robt@cymru.com>
wrote:
> Hi, NANOGers.
>
> ] I still disagree with this. To prevent SPAM, people shouldn't run open
> ] relays and the open relay problem should be solved. Breaking legitimate
> ] port 25 traffic is a temporary hack.
>
> I suspect that most spam avoids open relays. The abuse of
> proxies, routers, and bots for this purpose is far more in
> vogue. Watch out for worms such as W32.Sanper, which also
> provide a built-in spam relay network. Remove all of the
> open mail relays and you are left with...lots of spam.
>
> More at NANOG... ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Rob.
> --
> Rob Thomas
> http://www.cymru.com
> ASSERT(coffee != empty);
>
