Why not go after bots?

Charles Wyble charles at thewybles.com
Wed Sep 3 19:04:21 CDT 2008


Michael Thomas wrote:
> Charles Wyble wrote:
>>
>> I have SBC / AT&T / Yahoo DSL in Southern California and they block 
>> outbound 25 to anything but Yahoo SMTP server farm, and they only 
>> allow SSL
>> connectivity at that. I'm all for that personally.
> That seems to be the convention wisdom, but the science experiment
> as it were in blocking port 25 doesn't seem to be correlated (must
> less causated) with any drop in the spam rate. Because so far as I've
> heard there isn't any such drop. Spammers and the rest are pretty
> resourceful.

Well.... SBC in SoCal is one of many providers. I think a lot of spam 
comes from outside
of the united states end user subscriber pools as well. :)
>
> So I still haven't heard why there isn't any emphasis on going after
> the bots that are by far the biggest problem instead of erecting damage
> for them to route around. 
Well there are plenty of security lists / blogs / forums etc where much 
effort is being put forth towards eliminating the bots.
> I can sort of understand why providers are
> leery of getting sucked into that battle, but it's got to cost them a
> fortune for every "My internet is slow" call they take.
>
>       Mike
>


-- 
Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project





More information about the NANOG mailing list