Question concerning authoritative bodies.

Sun Mar 9 20:55:47 UTC 2003

On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:

> networks back it. Blocking the scans at a TCP/IP level is easily detectable.
> Provider received email from said server, IP was submitted for testing, no
> connection can be established to said server. Place it in the "wouldn't
> allow scan list". Politely ask AOL to use the "wouldn't allow scan list" for
> all inbound smtp connections.

Lots of people run outgoing mail servers that don't accept connections 
from the outside.  A scarey number of people run "multihomed" mail servers 
where traffic comes in on one IP, leaves on another, and the output IP 
doesn't listen for SMTP connections.

> People want the abuse of unsecured relays for smtp stopped. I'm afraid it is

Some do.  Some see absolutely nothing wrong with their running open 
relays.  You're going to need a serious authority figure with some 
effective means of backing up their policy to change these minds.

BTW...these topics have been discussed before.  Before we all get warnings 
from the nanog list police, have a look at the thread I started back in 
8-2001 http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/0108/msg00448.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 System Administrator        |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |  
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________