rfc 1918?
bill manning
bmanning at localhost.localdomain
Sun Feb 25 11:46:56 UTC 2001
"We" certainly are. As the stickie for holding that space, I field alot
of
spam complaints about drek that originates from RFC 1918 space. I really
wish
NATs were smart enough to rewrite SMTP headers... sometimes. :)
SMcGrath at dhhs.state.nh.us wrote:
>
> Bill, You get the 10 point bonus.
>
> Are we leaking RFC1918 SMTP headers ?
>
> Scott
>
> bill manning <bmanning at localhost.localdomain>@merit.edu on 02/23/2001
> 02:49:32 PM
>
> Please respond to bmanning at karoshi.com
>
> Sent by: owner-nanog at merit.edu
>
> To: nanog at merit.edu
> cc: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
>
> Subject: Re: rfc 1918?
>
> SMcGrath at dhhs.state.nh.us wrote:
> >
> > Agreed Valdis,
> >
> > Our upstream's use 1918 addresses internally so that 1918 addresses are
> > constantly bouncing off our filters
> > we have an aggressive egress filter which makes sure no 1918's leak and
> > pollute the internet ;-} and filtering on core routers is a suboptimal
> > solution RFC 1819 addresses (10 points to the person who knows the
> > predecessor) NEED to be filtered at the border IMHO.
> >
> > Scott
> >
>
> AS long as you are filtering, could you -PLEASE- add the SMTP filter to
> prevent email w/ RFC 1918 addresses in the headers from leaking out of
> your networks?
>
> RFC 1597.
>
> --bill
More information about the NANOG
mailing list