[79342] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: botted hosts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Mon Apr 4 11:28:17 2005
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:27:02 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <m1DINGJ-008hgHC@rdaver.bungi.com>
To: Dave Rand <dlr@bungi.com>
Cc: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Dave Rand wrote:
>
> [In the message entitled "Re: botted hosts" on Apr 4, 1:10, Sean Donelan writes:]
> >
> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Dave Rand wrote:
> > >
> > > That means that if just the ISPs that we have identified as having
> > > "dynamically assigned" addresses were to install port 25 blocking, more than
> > > 1/3 of the spam would vanish.
> >
> > Does port 25 blocking actually make a difference? Any public data from
> > before and after? Or does it just annoy people, cause problems and not
> > fix anything?
> >
> Blocking port 25 has been a good idea for 8 years. Many ISPs have already
> done it (some better than others), and it absolutely does fix things.
just to be clear, from which 'customer' types are you asking to have
tcp/25 blocked? Dial? DSL? Cable-modem? Dedicated? can your providers go
block tcp/25 from your links today?
