[65539] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: incorrect spam setups cause spool messes on forwarders
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charles Sprickman)
Mon Dec 1 16:04:01 2003
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:00:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Sprickman <spork@inch.com>
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
Cc: Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20031201194250.543F47B43@berkshire.research.att.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> Right. Assuming that the described validation scheme is, in fact,
> what's being used, you'd expect Verizon's mailer to retain and cache
> the validation. That way, a single 450 can be turned into a 200 series
> or a 550.
Also imagine your domain being joe-jobbed. You, as an innocent bystander,
then get hammered by Verizon as they try to do a lookup on possibly
millions of incoming mails.
It's just not a very sane way to reduce their spamload. It's something
I'd expect from a smaller ISP, but I would have imagined by now that VZ
would have the money to go with something like Brightmail, or develop
something in-house like AOL.
Charles
> As Randy said, 450 means "there's a problem here that should be fixed
> soon; come back later". If it doesn't change, it's not a 450.
>
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
>
>
