Thanks to all who replied to my original request for Orlando. I'm
looking for the same info now for Washington DC.
I need to organise temporary Internet connectivity via fixed wireless
at DS3 or higher rates. Preferably microwave link, and I can provide
necessary equipment for the duration of the
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 at 5:14pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What about http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0402/gauthier.html
>
> After seeing that presentation, I wondered if an ISP could get
> away with something similar. Eric has the advantage of being
> the monopoly service provider for the dorms.
I kno
On 2004-02-13T15:30-0600, Ejay Hire wrote:
) You could use AOL's tactic and transparent proxy all
) outbound port 25 traffic. Then it'd be a relatively simple
) matter to add mr. spammer's ip to a hosts.deny. If you were
You may also need to filter inbound packets with a source port of 25, or
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Yes, that is a little bit stickier of an issue, IFF your goal is to
> > somehow continue to provide the would-be spammer with the ability to send
> > traffic to the net, provided it doesn't transit your mail server. I feel
> > th
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> > Yes, that is a little bit stickier of an issue, IFF your goal is to
> > somehow continue to provide the would-be spammer with the ability to send
> > traffic to the net, provided it doesn't transit your mail server. I feel
> > that you're overlooking the
Leo Vegoda wrote:
If you block the entire account then the user can't use the account
to download the updates your Abuse Team will responsibly want to
point him/her at. If you want to lose the customer then that's your
business. If you want to keep the customer, helping them fix their
mistakes is
You wrote:
[...]
> Yes, that is a little bit stickier of an issue, IFF your goal is to
> somehow continue to provide the would-be spammer with the ability to send
> traffic to the net, provided it doesn't transit your mail server. I feel
> that you're overlooking the simple solution. Blocking th
You could use AOL's tactic and transparent proxy all
outbound port 25 traffic. Then it'd be a relatively simple
matter to add mr. spammer's ip to a hosts.deny. If you were
really big-brother, you could do real-time Beaysean scanning
to identify "suspicious" hosts.
-Ejay
> -Original Message
Hello All , Is anyone using this product in in production ?
I have a customer who is in a crunch for time & is unable to put
any sugnificant resources together to build one from scratch .
Please reply off list & I'll summarize . Tia , JimL
--
+---
on Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 12:35:17PM -0500, Andy Dills wrote:
> For any responsible ISP, the problem is the spam coming into your
> mailservers, not leaving. As long as you quickly castrate the people who
> do relay spam through you, you're not going to have an egress spam
> problem.
I beg to diffe
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Dan Ellis wrote:
> The issue we have as a dynamic IP broadband provider is that it's a
> royal pain to shutdown a user - especially in regards to just mail.
> Lets say we have a spammer and a script detects it. We then have to
> track him back to the MAC address of the modem,
Andy,
These are exactly my concerns, and exactly what I feel I'm going to hear from the
staff and the customers. I am going to go back and make sure there isn't a "better"
solution. Thanks for the input.
The issue we have as a dynamic IP broadband provider is that it's a royal pain to
shutdo
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Dan Ellis wrote:
> 1) Residential Policy: Enable SMTPAUTH and disallow relaying
> unless the customer has a valid username/password. If you're not paying
> for a mailbox, you don't get to relay outbound. This should not break
> anything except those residential accou
--On 13 February 2004 09:27 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Y-Haw! A return to the Old West of bangbaths and pathalias.
*Not* that I think bilateral peering for SMTP is a great idea, but: a
web of trust (A trusts B, B trusts C) does not necessarily mean
the mail has to traverse the route of
--On 13 February 2004 08:47 -0500 Carl Hutzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is this what is commonly referred to as STARTTLS?
That would be good, but doesn't work when port 25 is blocked unless it's
STARTTLS on submission.
Alex
--On 13 February 2004 09:27 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Y-Haw! A return to the Old West of bangbaths and pathalias.
No thanks.
That's absolutely the issue with emerging resignation to "e-mail
peering" and the like being the only solution to the spam problem.
Folks who've been around lo
I am looking for a folk or two who has operational experience on the
above, and who can give me a couple pointers.
Much appreciated.
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben --
--Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 11:05:16AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > To attack spam, we need to attack it at its core, not at some secondary
> or
> > tertiary side-effect, with a mechanism that also hurt legitimate users.
>
> We, as network operators don't need to attack spam. We need
> to i
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:05:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> go a step further and require SMTP AUTH for every single
> SMTP session on port 25 as well. That means that AOL's mailservers
> would have to authenticate their sessions on Hotmail's servers
> before sending email and vice versa. It mean
My apologies for another annoying SMTP thread.
So, while considering enabling SMTPAUTH for all our
customers, I’m planning on placing firm policy on relaying. We’re
a regional broadband ISP/MSO that also serves a significant number of
educational and commercial cable/DSL connections as
> To attack spam, we need to attack it at its core, not at some secondary
or
> tertiary side-effect, with a mechanism that also hurt legitimate users.
We, as network operators don't need to attack spam. We need
to ignore spam itself and get to work securing the network
that enables spammers to d
This report has been generated at Fri Feb 13 21:47:46 2004 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
--On 12 February 2004 18:13 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since when was anything sent over port 25 confidential?
Since Phil Zimmerman decided to do something about it.
Well if you are considering the plain-text of an encrypted mail,
it doesn't much matter whether port 25 is intercepted by what
23 matches
Mail list logo
