[80392] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven J. Sobol)
Fri Apr 29 17:40:27 2005
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:39:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
To: "Miller, Mark" <mark.miller@qwest.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <7581A71201AA44499B0C1A0B5126D1A001D565EB@ITDENE2KM04.AD.QINTRA.COM>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Miller, Mark wrote:
> Unfortunately, a lot of static "business" DSL IP space is still on
> those lists and legitimate mail servers can get blocked. I usually use
> the DUL as a "white list" to negate hits on the traditional dnsbls since
> those are almost always stale.
<assertion type="applies to USA, don't know about other countries"> That's
because the ILECs, especially, don't feel the need to separate IPs on
which servers are allowed, and IPs on which they aren't. SBC is the worst
in this regard. No separation, no custom reverse DNS for DSL customers, no
way to be absolutely certain if sending mail from a specific IP is a
violation of SBC's TOS. </assertion>
I've noticed that you work for Qwest. If the people designing your network
DO have enough clue to separate IPs, bravo... but my experience is that
many ISPs, especially ILECs/RBOCs, don't.
--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
