Dear All,
Thank you for the valuable comments to this post.
Sincerely,
Wael
On 2/2/10 4:26 AM, Sven Eschenberg s...@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
There have been quite some posts since my first answer to Wael.
I just wanted to rephrase some stuff etc.
On Tue, February 2, 2010 00:43, Peter
On 1/31/2010 4:18 PM, SM wrote:
At 05:25 31-01-10, Wael Shaheen wrote:
As a solution the routing team was thinking to block port 25 for
outgoing as
some ISPs do. However, I do not see this to be a valid solution for many
reasons such as clients that have email servers outside, or if
decided
At 05:25 31-01-10, Wael Shaheen wrote:
As a solution the routing team was thinking to block port 25 for
outgoing as some ISPs do. However, I do not see this to be a valid
solution for many reasons such as clients that have email servers
outside, or if decided to be redirected to spam filters
There have been quite some posts since my first answer to Wael.
I just wanted to rephrase some stuff etc.
On Tue, February 2, 2010 00:43, Peter Dambier wrote:
Noel Butler wrote:
Firstly, I feel this really belongs on mailops not bind list :)
secondly...
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 00:00 +0300,
Dear DNS Experts,
This post is intended for discussion.
The ISP I work for has HUGE dynamic IP pools that are full of spammers (of
course). This huge volume of spam is actually influencing the decision for
some of the international provider¹s whether to give us links or not let
alone the bad
Dear Wael,
In what way is blocking Port 25 any worse than blocking MX/root queries
for clients? Both solutions neglect the fact, that spam is not a technical
problem.
Some ISPs think it is a good idea to forward you to a search web page,
when you mispell some URL, this is done via DNS. Obviously,
To me this seems to be a firewall/routing issue. If you know for sure
that some IP is sending spam, if you can not stop them, then at least
you can block their outgoing access to port 25.
Alternatively and maybe better arrange for a proxy server to do
filtering and discard spam. The proxy
Hi,
On 1/31/10 5:17 PM, Sven Eschenberg s...@whgl.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
Dear Wael,
In what way is blocking Port 25 any worse than blocking MX/root queries
for clients? Both solutions neglect the fact, that spam is not a technical
problem.
This spam issue is major for DSPs and large
Hi,
On 1/31/10 5:28 PM, Sten Carlsen st...@s-carlsen.dk wrote:
To me this seems to be a firewall/routing issue. If you know for sure
that some IP is sending spam, if you can not stop them, then at least
you can block their outgoing access to port 25.
Most of the RBLs list dynamic IP
At 05:25 31-01-10, Wael Shaheen wrote:
As a solution the routing team was thinking to block port 25 for outgoing as
some ISPs do. However, I do not see this to be a valid solution for many
reasons such as clients that have email servers outside, or if decided to be
redirected to spam filters
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Wael Shaheen wael.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
As a solution the routing team was thinking to block port 25 for outgoing as
some ISPs do. However, I do not see this to be a valid solution for many
reasons such as clients that have email servers outside, or if
In message c78b5f8c.46e43%wael.sha...@gmail.com, Wael Shaheen writes:
Dear DNS Experts,
This post is intended for discussion.
The ISP I work for has HUGE dynamic IP pools that are full of spammers (of
course). This huge volume of spam is actually influencing the decision for
some of the
Firstly, I feel this really belongs on mailops not bind list :)
secondly...
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 00:00 +0300, Wael Shaheen wrote:
Blocking port 25 is much worse IMHO because it forces users out of the
service, by restricting their ability to use their own mail servers that can
be hosted
13 matches
Mail list logo
