Hi,

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:05:12AM +0000, David Banes wrote:
> In my view this is the correct approach (block s2s communication) and
> mirrors the behaviour in the SMTP world. It's the way I run SMTP/XMPP
> platforms so I'd expect others to do the same.

As a last resort, this is of course the right approach. But rate-limiting
s2s connections in general as well limiting cross-server traffic for a
single account should be in place/possible as well, something many servers
are not so good at *whining*.

> Quite simply if you see a badly behaving server/IP you block it until the
> owner has rectified the situation.   Yes this upsets some users on the
> server(s) that is blocked but that's fine, they can apply pressure on the
> owner to fix it or take their 'business' elsewhere.
>
> Doing this will weed out the problem operators and clean up our network.

I agree but I have to point out that there is no mechanism (that I know of?)
to notify administrators of the situation. With mail, you at least have
[email protected], where mailadmins are supposed to look at. There is
no reason or requirement to subscribe to this mailinglist (nor should there
be). 

greetings, Mati

-- 
I only read plain text mail! I prefer pgp|gpg signed & encrypted mails!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to