Implementing anti-abuse techniques on ISP networks....
andy at rbdc.rbdc.com
Thu Aug 7 07:06:04 UTC 1997
> From owner-nanog at merit.edu Wed Aug 6 19:10 EDT 1997
> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 19:09:15 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Jon Lewis <jlewis at inorganic5.fdt.net>
> To: Andy Pitts <andy at rbdc.rbdc.com>
> cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Implementing anti-abuse techniques on ISP networks....
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Andy Pitts wrote:
> > I too, am a small Internet Service Provider, and I too, don't want
> > to block sites that my users may want to access. But there seems
> > to be a few domains that do nothing but generate spam. Am I not
> > providing a service to my users if I prevent them from being
> > smothered with spam from those sites?
> The issue is that there are ISPs that have filters such that their dialup
> customers cannot talk to port 25/tcp of systems elsewhere on the net.
> Customers have to use the provider's SMTP servers. The question is, is
> this a good thing? I don't think anyone would argue against UUNet and PSI
> doing this with the *.ms.uu.net dialups or the *.pub-isp.psi.net...but
> would you do this on your own network?
> I've blocked 4 ms.uu.net /16's and 12 pub-isp.psi.net /24's from talking
> directly to FDT's mail servers. Unfortunately, most of the junk from PSI
> is relayed through other sites anyway.
I'm not blocking anyone from port 25, *but* I have installed the ruleset
in out sendmail to make it reject any mail that does not originale or
terminate in our domain. This put a halt to the rash or relaying problems
we had some months ago, but down not affect our users in any way.
Andy Pitts : "Knowledge is a deadly friend
andy at rbdc.rbdc.com : When no one sets the rules."
http://www.rbdc.com : --King Crimson--
More information about the NANOG