Port blocking last resort in fight against virus

Wed Aug 13 13:26:30 UTC 2003

Subject: RE: Port blocking last resort in fight against virus Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:22:38PM +0100 Quoting Stephen J. Wilcox (steve at telecomplete.co.uk):
> 
> In fact it is not that effective, unfortunately the end user tends not to 
> understand the emails they receive and ignores them

Probably the fault not so much of complicated e-mails, but fatigue
from the flood of stoopid Sam Spade (and similar, but I remember
SS with some extra deep sighs) e-mails falsely claiming one has
spam responsability.

For an extreme case, try running a multi-ccTLD name server, and spice it
with some RIR allocated /8's served off the same box...

Us at the top aren't very attracted by the lack of RIR entries for
allocations, nor do we appreciate b0rken reverse. Blame where blame
is due, please.

The only involvement the ISP with the leaf node customer should do,
is to act as proxy for the clueless. You are paid by the customer,
so take care of that. You have a billing address (or are otherwise
not that able to bill them) so there is a point of contact. Use it.

-- 
Måns Nilsson         Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC
                        MN1334-RIPE

Hand me a pair of leather pants and a CASIO keyboard -- I'm living for
today!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20030813/ebc7de05/attachment.sig>