[79344] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: botted hosts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay R. Ashworth)
Mon Apr 4 12:49:43 2005
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 12:49:15 -0400
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
To: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0504040646370.21115@clifden.donelan.com>; from Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> on Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:09:51AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:09:51AM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
> A lot of people want to use inexpensive broadband connections, and use
> mail servers at their university or company. For whatever reason, the
> university and company mail admins only support port 25. If the ISP
> blocks port 25, the university and company mail admins loose their
> choice and have to spend money to upgrade their mail servers to support
> port 587 or something else. So there is lots of "cost-shifting."
>
> Do a google search for universities and mail hosting providers that
> aren't supporting port 587 and offer to help them update their
> mail servers. When you are finished, then you can advocate ISPs
> block port 25.
With all due respect to Sean and others, could we all please read
"block outgoing traffic from your net to other people's port 25" as
including "except for users who request the block be removed" at all
times?
Yes, I realize that it means you have to approach the block slightly
differently, and that it's slightly more work and money to do it that
way.
But it *does*, does it not, fix most of both sides of the problem, if
you do it that way?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
