short Botnet list and Cashing in on DoS
nonobvious at gmail.com
Mon Oct 11 17:52:45 UTC 2004
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:06:17 -0400, James Baldwin <jbaldwin at antinode.net> wrote:
> Pardon for my possibly ill informed interjection. I was under the
> impression that the current wind was blowing towards filtering outbound
> port 25 traffic while allowing outbound authenticated port 587 traffic?
> The though being that while this was not a FUSSP, it help to prevent
> unauthenticated "direct to mx" abuses.
Well, the wind blows where it wants...
587 and its relatives are useful for enterprise firewall penetration
as well as for
environments where ISPs incorrectly block port 25, and they make it
possible to do
SPF and similar sender-ID protocols in those environments (which are
For an ISP, you don't just "allow" 587 - the normal definition of
Internet service is
to allow everything unless there's a good reason not to, as opposed to
We've had the "blocking port 25" discussion too many times before, and
Paul Vixie's call to go implement BCP38 first.
Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far.
And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
More information about the NANOG