[95953] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fernando =?iso-8859-1?b?QW5kcuk=?=)
Thu Apr 12 06:22:40 2007
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:14:54 +0100
From: Fernando =?iso-8859-1?b?QW5kcuk=?= <fernando.andre@tvtel.pt>
To: frnkblk@iname.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAACLxa+XJkgPSYpEAuNPTURZAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Citando Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com>:
" but imagine how much work it
> would save their abuse department in the long run"
I think that Comcast trouble isn't has much has the company's affected I ke=
ep
the idea that the best is to rate limit incoming connections and a lot of
filtering to prevent the spam flood and keep hardware costs Low.
Placing the filtering on the user will make the user cry a lot against
the ISP,
change ISP and keep the problem. They really don't care about their compute=
r.
By using rate limit on incoming connections a lot of dynamic address's are
blocked.
"Additionally, upper management gives or takes away manpower many times
without
the understanding of what 'should' be done to be a good netizen and this
defines how much effort can be spent on fixing the problems. "
This is the biggest problem "upper management" really doesn't care and
the time
to use on this problems is not accounted.
So controlling the number of messages that leave your SMTP server is a
solution
and PBL from spamhaus is a good thing ! SPF also good but will lead to
complains
( tuff )
Blocking tcp destination port 25 to outside the network might work well
on small
and without concurrent ISP, on big ones I doubt it.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Ribeiro
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.tvtel.pt - Tvtel Comunica=E7=F5es S.A.
