[67668] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Anti-spam System Idea
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Timothy R. McKee)
Mon Feb 16 16:19:38 2004
From: "Timothy R. McKee" <tim@baseworx.net>
To: "'Petri Helenius'" <pete@he.iki.fi>
Cc: "'J Bacher'" <jb@jbacher.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:19:03 -0500
In-Reply-To: <403130C7.5000606@he.iki.fi>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Personally I don't see where ingress filters that only allow registered=20
SMTP servers to initiate TCP connections on port 25 is irresponsible.
Any user sophisticated enough to legitimately require a running SMTP =
server=20
should also have the sophistication to create a dns entry and register =
it
with
his upstream in whatever manner is required.
=20
There will never be a painless or easy solution to this problem, only a=20
choice where we select the lesser of all evils.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Petri Helenius [mailto:pete@he.iki.fi]=20
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 16:06
To: Timothy R. McKee
Cc: 'J Bacher'; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Anti-spam System Idea
Timothy R. McKee wrote:
>There will *never* be a concerted action by all service providers to=20
>filter ingress/egress on abused ports unless there is a legal=20
>requirement to do so. Think 'level playing field'...
> =20
>
Haven=B4t it been stated enough times previously that blindly blocking =
ports
is irresponsible?
There are ways to similar, if not more accurate results without =
resorting to
shooting everything that moves.
Pete
