The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)
Joe St Sauver
joe at oregon.uoregon.edu
Wed Sep 5 21:15:07 UTC 2012
Izaac <izaac at setec.org> commented:
#I suspect your ISP is also stripping <sarcasm> tags. Let's try it out
# You can tell that tcp port 25 filtering is a highly effective spam
# mitigation technique because spam levels have declined in direct
# proportion to their level of deployment. Today, we barely see any
# spam on the internet due to amazing ability of these filters to
# prevent bad people from sending bulk email.
#Was that properly marked?
Actually, not sure sarcasm tags are appropriate.
1) Port 25 blocks target direct-to-MX spam delivered by bots.
2) The Spamhaus CBL tracks the level of bot spam currently seen,
including breaking out statistics by a number of factors.
3) Currently, the US, where port 25 filtering is routinely deployed by
most large ISPs, is ranked 158th among countries when you consider botted
users on a per capita basis: http://cbl.abuseat.org/countrypercapita.html
4) While that's not perfect (after all, there are still at least 133,811
listings for the US), on a PER-CAPITA basis, it's not bad -- that's just
~0.055% of US Internet users that are infected, relative to some countries
where the rate of detected infection (based on spam emission) may be 4 to
5% or more.
So yes, actually, port 25 blocks *DO* tend to be effective in reducing
bot-delivered email spam.
Does this mean that port 25 blocks are the ONLY measure that is required
to control spam? No, absolutely not. But it does clearly help.
More information about the NANOG