Re: ES [Was : Anti-spam ...]
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 14:26:59 +0200 (MET DST)
On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Piet Beertema wrote:
>
> But the IBERNET administrator can cut the smtp port for the
> companies that refuse to accept the anti-spam policies.
> Here, in Romania, I'm working like this. If I'm receiving
> complains about one of the ISPs connected to our network and
> if the local admins refuse to apply the anti-spam policies,
> then I'm cutting their smtp port until they decide to do that.
> I know that this sounds a little nazi, but it worked so far.
> Then you're effectively creating black holes, and you're
> causing problems all over the Internet: "host unreachable"
> can be due to *any* network problem at *any* place along
> the route and really is no substitute for a clear error
> message saying that mail to or from host X or domain Y is
> blocked due to spamming. Users getting their mail bounced
> after Z days will have no idea what the hell is going on,
> nor will most of the sysadmins.
[...]
Piet,
Cutting the smtp port does not result in general 'host unreachable'
symptomps. However using RBL with the BGP4 option *does*.
You have more reason to reject RBL BGP4 usage than the practice
that Corneliu describes.
Mikl�s
--------- P�sztor Mikl�s ------------------ pasztor@localhost
MTA SZTAKI/ASZI Budapest
1132 V. Hugo u. 18-22 Tel: (36)-(1)-349-75-32
